> But the real advantage of the CRDT approach is that, if you can limit your entire operation set to CRDTs, you can forego consensus algorithms such as Paxos, Multi-Paxos, Fast Paxos, Raft, Extended Virtual Synchrony, and anything else along those lines.<p>Things like this are said a lot, but I don't believe CRDTs provide the same consistency guarantees as Paxos/Raft.<p>Anyone have thoughts on why CRDTs might be favored over the internals of something like a well written eventually consistent datastore like Cassandra that doesn't use Paxos/Raft?<p>Is he just saying that your consensus algorithm then just becomes that math of CRDTs and not the careful complexity of a distributed consensus protocol?<p>(the interviewee then goes on to describe that CRDTs fit their use case well, so maybe that is all he is saying...)