Thus although the paper is correct to state that BGP is solvable if the 2/3 + 1 of the generals are loyal (i.e. 3m + 1 total generals for m traitors), the only way to know that precondition is for the system to be centralized so that the count of the traitors is known. Thus the white paper is poorly written (w.r.t. this issue) because it does not explain that there is no decentralized, trustless solution to the BGP and insinuates the opposite in the mind of the naive reader.
No loyal general ever knows if the system is loyal or not.
There is no decentralized solution to the BGP problem. Period.
Another poor conclusion. If the set of all traitors was known a priori, the system would be tollerant to any bound! That is the entire point of the problem; the set of traitor generals is
unknown.
monsterer I am sad to conclude that you've turned into a time wasting Dunning-Kruger troll with a chip on your shoulder.
Your reading comprehension sucks! I wrote about the 'number/count of' not the 'set of' (where the latter requires knowing which of the generals are the traitors, not just the count of traitors).
There is no fault in my logic. Sorry dude.