The Two Generals’ Problem

Tom Scott
Vues 1 671 638
98% 66 176 1 042

Time to tell a story about idempotency, computer science, and the Night of the Multiple Orders. • Sponsored by Dashlane -try 30 days for free at:
Written by Sean M Elliott and Tom Scott
Directed by Tomek
Graphics by Mooviemakers
Audio mix by Haerther Productions
Thanks to Dashlane for sponsoring the video! If you're techie enough to watch this video, you should be using a password manager. Get a 30-day free trial at
I'm at
on Twitter at
on Facebook at
and on Instagram as tomscottgo



12 août 2019




Charger le lien.....

Ajouter à:

Ma playlist
À regarder plus tard
Commentaires 2 677
Tom Scott
Tom Scott Il y a 4 mois
Yes, I had help with the graphics for this series. There's no way I'd have animated that myself! On that note, thanks to Dashlane for sponsoring and helping me hire an animator: their free trial link is
Akin Turhan
Akin Turhan Il y a mois
I have thought about dashlane I want to know the advantage over Google chrome random password generator and manager that is synced with one master password. they don't know any of the passwords either.
The Superginge
The Superginge Il y a mois
As glad as I am that you're getting sponsored, I feel I should tell people that Firefox is starting to offer this password security option for free, though before anyone gets angry at me, I don't know what level of security it is, comparatively, I just want to make people aware of options!
Matti Lüdke
Matti Lüdke Il y a 2 mois
Why not send a person from each army to the middle of the valley. Then both discuss a time and go back to their army. That way they will know if the message was received by the other army. As the Danger of the route lies in the middle of the valley they will get back safely.
صالح Il y a 2 mois
Hey there is a way to solve the 2 genrals problem and it's a horne or war drums because they are loud enugh to hear
Dark Thoughts
Dark Thoughts Il y a 3 mois
Now you know the issues protocol standards committees have to 'foresee' when designing a communication protocol.
Federico Olivares
Federico Olivares Il y a 3 heures
To me is simple the general's problem A sends "is 8pm ok? Send "ok" back for yes, if you dont receive an ok back from me, send "response?" Back 2 more times. If you dont get an ok from me, consider it null. I too will send a 2 "response?" If i dont listen back So gen B agrees, Sends one Ok gets Ok back Both attack. Gen b sends ok doesnt hear back, received "response?" Sends ok Receives ok both attack Gen b sends ok doesnt hear back, doesnt receive response at all. Asumes A's ok has been intercepted as they would have sent one or more "response?" Back otherwise. Sends "response?" And so on. If all 5 messagers get caught after the initisl messsge, the attsck wouldnt go through. If just 2 Oks do go through, the attsck goes through
Phillip Otey
Phillip Otey Il y a 7 heures
I mean you need 2 minimum. A keeps sending troops saying: send one troop telling us what time to attack. We will keep sending troops until the package is received, and if the time of attack has not past we are a go.
Ady Day
Ady Day Il y a 8 heures
Don’t rely on technology too much..nothing is built to last!
Name Il y a 2 jours
Just make an agreement that 2 or more acknowledgements means you can attack
Jo 1337
Jo 1337 Il y a 3 jours
It's 2 am and I regret nothing
Vysair Il y a 6 jours
Or maybe both general could send dozen more message until it hit certain threshold and that will confirm it.
10k12 Il y a 7 jours
2:35 why not let them meet in the middle, so if they perish, they perish together and no message is received, but if they manage to meet, they can return and there are no threats on the way back to the generals.
Shaurya Pant
Shaurya Pant Il y a 8 jours
Well, after both the teams have received confirmation of the other party that they know that you know and will go at 8PM, I don't see any further need of sending messengers. Can someone explain, please?
Andre L
Andre L Il y a 8 jours
How come this problem exists at all, if the proposed time is 8 pm, and both of them acknowledged the acknowledgments, then why would A and B need to keep sending acknowledgments? They both acknowledged the proposal and acknowledgment, so it's already planned? They both already know that it made it to the other side at least twice, so what's the problem? This just feels like it's not really a problem.... How is this line of reasoning incorrect?
Markus B
Markus B Il y a 8 jours
I should be asleep but general B didn’t give me a confirmation
john wick
john wick Il y a 8 jours
Simply. General A sends a messenger which returns after delivery of the message. If the messenger does not return after a suitable time span. It is safe to assume something happend and another messenger needs to be sent
Space Griffin
Space Griffin Il y a 9 jours
but wouldn't a and b know they've received the message by the third message?
DukeOfEarle88 Il y a 10 jours
£7.74 word.
UberKrassMann Il y a 10 jours
2:55 starts sweating.....
Skepty Il y a 11 jours
Just tell them to make a fire signal after they do, as confirmation. Not that hard.
Ashor Il y a 11 jours
for the two generals, couldnt one side send a messenger with the message telling them to attack at a certain time (sundown) but to ensure they both know they both have to shoot a cannon ball to the west of the other general at sunrise) if they both observe the cannon ball west of them then they know they will attack at sundown
Midhunraj R Pillai
Midhunraj R Pillai Il y a 11 jours
I wonder how the generals problem is unsolvable. Please correct me whats the mistake of the solution below, Step1: General A sends message saying attack at 6pm (Here, A establishes the time) Step 2: General B gets the message, sends back an acknowledgement 1 for the message 'we go the time' (B gets the time) Step 3: General A gets the ACK 1 (now, A knows that B got the time of attack. But B won't attack because B don't know that ACK 1 is reached at A. so..) A sends a confirmation ACK 2 back Step 4: General B gets the ACK 2 (now, B knows that both A and B establishes the time. Also B got the ACK 2, meaning B knows that ACK 1 reached A. But B knows that A won't attack until A confirm that B got the ACK 2. so...) B sends a confirmation ACK 3 back Ahhhh this trend continues and no one will attack since they cannot make sure that the previous ACK sent by them is reached at the other end!!! I am sorry (T_T)
Ivan farlenkov
Ivan farlenkov Il y a 12 jours
Have generals send messagers at set periods of time even when there is nothing to send. If there is no messager, ask about it in the next message.
Gareth H
Gareth H Il y a 11 jours
@Ivan farlenkov You really do not get it. Oh well, nevermind. Stick to flipping burgers.
Ivan farlenkov
Ivan farlenkov Il y a 12 jours
@Gareth H Why not? If messagee is lost, request to resend will be eventualy get to the other side.
Gareth H
Gareth H Il y a 12 jours
That is the ping approximation that is used. But it is not a solution to the problem, there is no solution.
Monsieur P.
Monsieur P. Il y a 13 jours
My bank card would’ve texted me to confirm charge after being pinged to debit my account identical amount of money. It’s kind of stupid that nobody selling the food didn’t notice.
Monsieur P.
Monsieur P. Il y a 13 jours
😂 these damn apps!
novicetheaf Il y a 13 jours
This is a classic lack of dev testing prior to sending it for testing prior to deploying it to the end user, and QA testing.
Kevi Kiru
Kevi Kiru Il y a 14 jours
Even your paid promotions are interesting to listen to!
Oasia Il y a 14 jours
Why dont the say just to fire a cannon if they recieve the message
Julian Danzer
Julian Danzer Il y a 14 jours
2:57 umm...
Floofzy Kitty
Floofzy Kitty Il y a 15 jours
1:38 What are you talking about? Of course they made it to the other side. Just not the side they intended.
Muhammad Adam
Muhammad Adam Il y a 19 jours
Surely after the 4 messengers they wouldn't need confirmation any further confirmation because both would have already known that it's agreed upon
Terrain Il y a 19 jours
You didn’t solve the two generals problem, you solved another problem created by it being unsolvable, which arguably is more dangerous than the two generals problem
BeforeReform Il y a 20 jours
per your ad... there is *always* the possibility of brute force getting through. It could take years, or decades on average, but there is always a chance someone gets lucky.
Angelmarauder Il y a 20 jours
its_a_trab Il y a 21 jour
You could just send the original guy back.
Emerald Block Boat
Emerald Block Boat Il y a 21 jour
I'd say that if B received two verifications then do it
TARINunit9 Il y a 22 jours
Proposition for the two generals problem: instead of sending one messenger, send a pair of messengers. One messenger stays at camp B and the other returns to camp A. If no messengers return to camp A, then it's obvious that the message was intercepted on one of the two trips, so you send another pair
Lloyd Thorpe
Lloyd Thorpe Il y a 25 jours
What they should have done is just starve the castle out like they most commonly did
The Nintendo Fan
The Nintendo Fan Il y a 25 jours
Honestly, the red army would automatically assume the blue army got the message and would attack on that time
Eric ON
Eric ON Il y a 25 jours
Atleast once invocation solves this issue as well. I.e. let the client keep spamming the same request until one confirm has been recieved.
Emil Sørensen
Emil Sørensen Il y a 26 jours
I'd definitely not like having a master password that, if lost, renders my entire online life unrecoverable. How can you possibly make your one password unforgettable? Chisel it into an immovable rock?
LED Kat Il y a 27 jours
Send the entire army as the messenger
Beowulf Macbethson
Beowulf Macbethson Il y a 27 jours
I was watching a video about Morgoth from Lord of the Rings, why am I here. Also your video is great and informative.
TIMΞ СнΛИGΣ Il y a 28 jours
But the generals would know after a few acknowledgements? What am I missing here
The History of my Hair