[Cryptography] reliable broadcast channel

[Sid Spry]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, at 6:37 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> Doesn't "Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults" prove that if a
> majority of participants are defecting, you *can't* reach consensus? 
> Alternately, if over half the participants are coordinating, what's to say
> their version of reality isn't the "correct" one, even if the other
> participants disagree?
> 

It's democracy if I like it, tyranny of the majority if I don't.


> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:21AM +1000, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> > But interesting protocols are likely to involve small groups in which we
> > want the transaction to fail if more than half the participants are
> > defecting.

I can see warning a user if there is an irregularity in the way Monero
tends to do, but what actionable information does this give the user?
The situation has become degenerate, you may just need to stop
doing whatever it was you were doing.

The example of check kiting is a bad one -- the solution is probably
to view the "unauthorized credit" (double spend) as either
inconsequential or impossible.

The two general's is insoluble. If your communication link is faulty then
you will not be able to provably reach consensus.