Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consensus is only necessary when one needs to decide between conflicting choices, and CRDTs are by definition conflict-free. Nodes only need to verify that any update to the CRDT is in fact a legal operation on the data structure. Essentially, the paper details how to ensure two properties: (1) All nodes will eventually receive all legal updates, and (2) no node will accept a malformed update, (and crafting undetecta…
Could this be used to prevent double spends by marking such a spend as 'an illegal update'? I imagine not, but I wonder what limitation of CRDTs would prevent this.
Researchers in eventual consistency pretty much just assume this.
e.g. in the original CRDT papers -- bottom of page 10 in : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06358.pdf; top of page 11 in : https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00609399v1/document