Orphaned chains (not sustained forks!) are a natural and can't be proven to be an attack.
Irrelevant. BGP does not distinguish between attacks and natural faults due to latency
Also I already explained upthread that an emphemeral fork (which orphans another chain) can't be blamed for a double-spend or censored transaction, because there is no provable correlation.
See above.
Seems you've forgotten where I had to teach you in my Decentralized thread why it is
impossible for a minority chain to prove anything (because the state of the chain is never absolute w.r.t. to any external chain/clock and is always moving forward). Which is the same analogous
mistake enet made upthread.
Fuck man, you can't even keep all the concepts in your head from the past discussions!
I finally see the core of your mistake. You expect the system itself to catalog and prove faults and automatically use this information somehow to give a warning that the byzantine tolerance has been exceeded. However, this is not a requirement in the least - the system will work up until the point it fails, the failure mode is undefined.
The link you reference is concerned with evidence of historical forks in a system with a completely different consensus rule than LCR.