News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Solana Labs completes a $314M private token sale led by A... by baby on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @11:11PM (#27524466)
I was talking about network conditions, not a threshold of malicious participants (in which case yeah you will have liveness issues).

Your second paragraph is false also. Different BFT systems have different assumptions. Some work in asynchronous settings, some work in semi-synchronous settings, etc.

Re:Solana Labs completes a $314M private token sale led by A... by jude- on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:41PM (#27530547)
You should consider rereading Leslie Lamport's original paper. BFT is a property of corrupt votes, not the network. You keep trying to make it about the network. Like, if you want to have a conversation about how the network can influence the system's fault tolerance, you should instead consider the network topology -- as in, which routes between honest nodes include corrupt nodes. This is also considered by the paper, since corrupt nodes can censor or rewrite messages, and thus influence how many corrupt nodes the system can truly tolerate, given a network topology. But in no case does message delay give a BFT system's node an excuse to make forward progress without first verifying that at least 2f+1 replicas agree with its decision. Even voting on a view change to remove a presumed dead node requires a 2f+1 vote.