Friend,
PARSEC is better than the others “classic” Byzantine consensus algorithms” but is not better for SAFE.
The problem, as I understand it, is that the theory was put before the practice. And this is a problem only if you believe that without Parsec the same conclusion could have been reached that CRDT and AT2 and BLS could be used instead…
So once again, the important thing is that the “mistake” Parsec showed us the way forward 
So what are we “losing” in theory without PARSEC? I know there are some benefits to move away from it (described earlier). That’s a legit question, I am not trying to troll or what…
tl;dr We can now very confidently do it faster with less.
Part of the confusion may be the sheer speed at which this field evolves. 2 years ago PARSEC was “revolutionary” - now it’s classic
A crude analogy may be that 40 years ago banks started to use mainframes which was revolutionary, now we use (unsafely) classic mobile banking on our phones.
Technology just moved on. 40 yrs ago we needed room sized machines, now we hold them in our hands. We found better (no sniggering at the back) ways of doing things with improved technology, thats all.
Hopefully someone will come along soon with a cleaner and more precise analogy.
But I can totally see how the speed of the development in the field can confuse.
We lose a lot of info about the exact order in which some operations were carried out. For the purposes of the checks we are doing at this stage we no longer need to know the exact order in which they happened, only the fact that they did happen (and can be proven to have happened)
Thanks really, I start to get it now 
So you mean that between 2018 and now, more suitable solutions have been “discovered” and PARSEC is not the best fit anymore for the Safe Network?
We lose a lot of info about the exact order in which some operations were carried out.
Ok I see, so I can not proof I did A before B, but I can proof I did A?
Yes.
Also had we not climbed the PARSEC hill, we would have been unlikely to find these other faster more efficient ways of doing only the bare minimum to achieve an acceptable result
Yes, I agree. If the event ordering is the only downside then the decision to not use PARSEC is understandable.
David claims his hero is Richard Feynmann but he has also taught the team to think like Colin Chapman, the famous race car designer
also
It’s more subtle, you can prove A before B when B relies on A, this is th causal order bit. However we don’t care if you do A or B first when they are not related. PARSEC and DAG based consensus (blockchian too) relate everything to everything else
So really these total order things (which I inherently dislike) tend towards coupling everything in one large decide order of everything system.
To me that’s not decentralised or as truly decentralised as order only what’s required, but do so in a provably secure manner and now CRDT is provably consistent so easier to not understand, but explain, if that makes sense. Previously folk seen eventual consistency to mean possibly never consistency and that is so wrong. I see more eyes opening in this direction now.
Our guys are all over this and we should get back to being well in front of the game here, as we could have been a few years back. PARSEC looked great, sounded great and all the rest, a bit like, let’s use time. It suits the less deep thinking and offers the world, but it does so with a nasty sting in the tail. That is the world does not work like that, only our tiny brains cannot see it at times. We need to let go control sometimes and marvel at the sophistication from seemingly complex systems of iterations, just like an ant colony, neural network, or any species interaction with themselves and their environment in nature. There is no overall god algorithm there is only simplicity, randomness and chance.
With CRDT/at2/data chains, we are allowing this to happen and only forcing order where it’s absolutely necessary. As the decentralised field evolves we will see more of this and as CRDT types advance (still early days) we will also see significant self healing increases in knowledge (data) in a truly async manner.
Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I understand now, I am following the project from “far” since 2015 and I come back in this forum time to time to get some updates. Maybe that’s why I was more confused about this decision but now it makes sense.
I think it is honorable to have taken this decision since PARSEC was lot of work for the team.
Maybe we should have built an ecosystem in which this could have evolved! 
Stop philosophising and get on with understanding SOLID so I don’t have to.
“There is no overall god algorithm there is only simplicity, randomness and chance.”
E 
X C E L L E N T !!!
These details are what make me understand that Maidsafe has a great Director.
I wonder how many sections are running with this internal testnet.
Keep plodding away maidsafe. You’ll get there. 
And it’ll be sooooo worth it 
Well done team. Keep chipping away.
Great Quote!
Passed the finish line and on to the next race is what I’m looking for here with SAFE be it “heavy” or “light-ness”.
Though there is arguably never a finish line in this industry, just inventive design and solutions hopefully spinning off some spectacular use cases many have already dreamed up.
