2 ms·

A attacks too, since, being a thinking human knows that he previously received 2. I think most humans would attack with a reasonable degree of confidence if th

• dwohnitmok 7y ago
  It's a bit hard to express this with plain English so maybe it makes sense to just write out the pseudo-code. A: attack if acks from B > 0 B: attack if acks from A > 0 Let's look at the current A --> B : Original message (not an ack) A <-- B : Ack from B (A is now committed to attacking) A -/> B : Ack from A is lost, B does not attack Okay let's change it up A: attack if acks from B > 1 B: attack if acks from A > 0 A --> B : Original message (not an ack) A <-- B : Ack from B (A is not yet committed to attacking) A --> B : Ack from A (B is committed to attacking) A </- B : Ack from B is lost, A does not attack The essential problem (which I failed to explain correctly) is that while you can always go from a fixed set of interactions and work out a protocol that would've worked for that particular interaction, you can't go the other direction (starting with a protocol and throwing arbitrary interactions at it).