What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Byzantine Generals Problem describes how distributed computers can agree on a decision even when some participants may lie, behave arbitrarily, or send different messages to different peers. In the original oral-message model, agreement is possible if and only if more than two-thirds of the participants are loyal.
How the generals illustrate a computing problem
Imagine several generals surrounding a city. They must agree on a shared plan, such as whether to attack or retreat, but some may be traitors. A traitor could report one plan to one general and a conflicting plan to another. If the loyal generals cannot distinguish reliable messages from deceptive ones, they may end up following incompatible plans.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Distributed Systems | $32.68 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Understanding Distributed Systems, Second Edition: What every developer should know about large... | $32.41 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Distributed Systems | $35.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Foundations of Scalable Systems: Designing Distributed Architectures | $42.49 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design | $255.63 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In computing, the generals stand for distributed units—such as computers in a network—that need to agree on a value or action. The problem is not simply that messages might be delayed or lost: a participant itself may provide misleading or inconsistent information. NIST defines the problem as consensus among distributed units when some provide misleading answers (NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures: “Byzantine generals”).
Recommended Free Tools
What the original result says about traitors
Lamport, Shostak, and Pease’s 1982 paper establishes a precise threshold for the original setting: using only oral messages, the problem is solvable if and only if more than two-thirds of the generals are loyal. The authors summarize the boundary this way: “a single traitor can confound two loyal generals.” Read the threshold with its assumptions attached; it is a result for the paper’s oral-message model, not a universal rule for every consensus protocol.
#1 Best Overall
Equivalently, that model requires fewer than one-third of participants to be traitors. Exactly one-third does not meet the strict “more than two-thirds loyal” condition. The original paper’s abstract and publication record are available from SRI International and Microsoft Research.
How this relates to the 3f + 1 rule
In discussions of Byzantine fault tolerance, a common question is why a system may be described as needing 3f + 1 nodes to tolerate f faulty nodes. This arithmetic reflects a strict less-than-one-third fault bound: with f faulty participants, 3f + 1 total participants leaves 2f + 1 loyal participants, which is more than two-thirds of the total.
That connection is useful intuition, not a guarantee that every protocol with 3f + 1 nodes has the same properties. Protocols can rely on different communication and timing assumptions, including authenticated messages or different handling of failed channels. Check the specific protocol’s fault model before applying the original threshold to a real system.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Byzantine faults are not the two-generals messenger problem
The two-generals problem concerns coordination when messages may fail to arrive: separated parties cannot be certain that a message or its acknowledgment was delivered. Byzantine agreement instead concerns participants that may actively lie or send contradictory messages. NIST and Microsoft Research distinguish these as different problems (NIST’s definition; Microsoft Research’s paper record).
Rank #3
Where the problem got its name
Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease published “The Byzantine Generals Problem” in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, volume 4, issue 3, in July 1982, pages 382–401. The military analogy gave a memorable name to a fundamental question in distributed computing: how can independent participants reach agreement when some may not be trusted?
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
