Simulating authenticated broadcasts to derive simple fault-tolerant algorithms

Srikanth, T. K.; Toueg, Sam

doi:10.1007/bf01667080

Cited by 195 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1(b) (to be compared with the "init" round followed by the "echo" round of authenticated broadcast, see [3]). …”

Section: Coordinator For Livenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the latter, two fault models are considered in literature [1]: authenticated Byzantine faults, where messages can be signed by the sending process (with the assumption that the signature cannot be forged by any other process), and Byzantine faults, where there is no mechanism for signatures (but the receiver of a message knows the identity of the sender). 1 Consensus protocols that assume Byzantine faults (without authentication) are harder to develop and prove correct [3]. As a consequence, they tend to be more complicated and harder to understand than the protocols that assume 1 In [2], the latter is called Byzantine faults with oral messages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This question has been addressed by Srikanth and Toueg in [3] for the Byzantine agreement problem, 2 by defining the authenticated broadcast primitive. Authenticated broadcast is a communication primitive that provides additional guarantees compared to, e.g., a normal (unreliable) broadcast.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complementing the approach of [3], we define an abstraction different from authenticated broadcast that we call weak interactive consistency. 3 Interactive consistency is defined in [7] as a problem where correct processes must agree on a vector such that the ith element of this vector is the initial value of the ith process if this process is correct.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Interactive consistency is defined in [7] as a problem where correct processes must agree on a vector such that the ith element of this vector is the initial value of the ith process if this process is correct. Our abstraction is a weaker variant of interactive consistency, hence the name "weak" interactive consistency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Unifying Byzantine Consensus Algorithms with Weak Interactive Consistency

Milošević

Hutle

Schiper

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper considers the consensus problem in a partially synchronous system with Byzantine processes. In this context, the literature distinguishes authenticated Byzantine faults, where messages can be signed by the sending process (with the assumption that the signature cannot be forged by any other process), and Byzantine faults, where there is no mechanism for signatures (but the receiver of a message knows the identity of the sender). The paper proposes an abstraction called weak interactive consistency (WIC ) that unifies consensus algorithms with and without signed messages. WIC can be implemented with and without signatures.The power of WIC is illustrated on two seminal Byzantine consensus algorithms: the Castro-Liskov PBFT algorithm (no signatures) and the Martin-Alvisi FaB Paxos algorithms (signatures). WIC allows a very concise expression of these two algorithms.

show abstract

“…1(b) (to be compared with the "init" round followed by the "echo" round of authenticated broadcast, see [3]). …”

Section: Coordinator For Livenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Unifying Byzantine Consensus Algorithms with Weak Interactive Consistency

Milošević

Hutle

Schiper

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Design and Analysis of Distributed Algorithms

Santoro¹

2006

158

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

show abstract

Optimal Resilience Asynchronous Approximate Agreement

Abraham

Amit

Dolev

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Consider an asynchronous system where each process begins with an arbitrary real value. Given some fixed > 0, an approximate agreement algorithm must have all non-faulty processes decide on values that are at most from each other and are in the range of the initial values of the non-faulty processes.Previous constructions solved asynchronous approximate agreement only when there were at least 5t + 1 processes, t of which may be Byzantine. In this paper we close an open problem raised by Dolev et al. in 1983. We present a deterministic optimal resilience approximate agreement algorithm that can tolerate any t Byzantine faults while requiring only 3t + 1 processes.The algorithm's rate of convergence and total message complexity are efficiently bounded as a function of the range of the initial values of the non-faulty processes. All previous asynchronous algorithms that are resilient to Byzantine failures may require arbitrarily many messages to be sent.

show abstract

Simulating authenticated broadcasts to derive simple fault-tolerant algorithms

Cited by 195 publications

References 16 publications

Unifying Byzantine Consensus Algorithms with Weak Interactive Consistency

Unifying Byzantine Consensus Algorithms with Weak Interactive Consistency

Design and Analysis of Distributed Algorithms

Optimal Resilience Asynchronous Approximate Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About