My point applied in specific cases where relevant, and the dishonesty in your argument here is by acting like I am talking about not having a game.

It's tellingly ironic that for you it's totally okay to make a broad statement, then when being called out cut it back to "where relevant". And in the same sentence you make a strawman yourself, claiming that I'm acting like you are "talking about not having a game at all". If you want your arguments understood "where relevant", maybe show the same consideration.

As for the grenade and bullet examples I simply disagree. Given a certain observable trajectory it's freakishly easy to get a good enough point of origin to get an unfair advantage with that information. As for an example about the bullets, I believe there's enough FPS games with tracers out there. An extreme example would be Unreal Tournament Instagib matches. Where you see literally all tracers - directed at you or not.

If we're going to that extent, we might as well also then say that all client side anti cheat is worthless because you can use a secondary machine to read the ram of a primary machine or other such high effort cheating strategies.

Correct. Client side anti cheat can only make it so hard. Never impossible.

because they never claimed anything was a kill-it-all solution. They claimed one thing was a specific solution for a particular problem, which it is.

Yes, they said wall hacks would not exist if the server would only send what a user can actually see:

The only reason they are possible is because the positions of all players are being sent to the client and then the client just doesn't draw them to screen.

And that's not true. Wall hacks would still exist, as necessary information can be used to determine an enemies position. To a certain extend.

And yes, put to an unreasonable extreme it would eliminate wall hacks entirely. Just nobody would want to play such a game.

Have a good day.