It’s unfair to equate this paper to obviously flawed ones since all their claims seem to be properly substantiated. Also, the protocol does not assume a trusted

It’s unfair to equate this paper to obviously flawed ones since all their claims seem to be properly substantiated. Also, the protocol does not assume a trusted leader (otherwise agreement would be trivially solved). In general, I am also not fond of this writing style. However, if one reads more papers published in this community/area, then one notices that many of them are written similarly. Since the primary audience of these papers are other researchers in the same area, they are presumably able to read past the cruft efficiently. I also agree that academia incentivizes overselling results. In this case, however, this is a nice result and not oversold by the authors (being somewhat knowledgeable in this field).