Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine generals problem
by
TPTB_need_war
on 08/02/2016, 20:28:32 UTC
Please respect canonical definitions. Byzantine 'agreement' is not what we are talking about in this thread. We are talking about Byzantine fault tolerance. The definitions are on Wikipedia:

I'm tired of repeating myself. Here is an entire paper which proves that bitcoin did solve the BGP: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/anonymous-byzantine-consensus.pdf

That paper is flawed. For example,

Quote from: nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/anonymous-byzantine-consensus.pdf#page=3
What really matters is that ownership of the currency is undisputable - everyone can agree on who owns what.

Yet the paper never addresses the issue that no one can know when all observers agree or not on who has lost access due to censored transaction or victim of a double spend (a double spend has a loser and winner but who can prove the loser the victim). The majority hashrate is forced on all observers, regardless. That is not the definition of fault tolerance. Consistency of observer experience is violated. The CAP theorem requires that if Partition tolerance is not allowed (due to the single longest chain partition rule) then either Access or Consistency must be lost.

Monsterer I grow very weary of your proclamations which are nearly always short-sighted. You demand I go do the work that you didn't do. And that isn't fair to me. Just because a white paper claims to prove something, doesn't mean it did.