Autonomous Nodes and Distributed Mechanisms

  • John C. Mitchell
  • Vanessa Teague
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2609)


We extend distributed algorithmic mechanism design by considering a new model that allows autonomous nodes executing a distributed mechanism to strategically deviate from the prescribed protocol. Our goal is to motivate agents to contribute to a global objective and resist disruption by a limited number of malicious irrational agents, augmenting market incentives with cryptographic primitives to make certain forms of behavior computationally infeasible. Several techniques for distributing market computation among autonomous agents are illustrated using a marginal cost mechanism for multicast cost sharing from [3].


Malicious Node Multicast Tree Content Provider Link Cost Correct Proof 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Feigenbaum, A. Krishnamurthy, R. Sami, and S. Shenker. Approximation and collusion in multicast cost sharing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 253–255, New York, 2001. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Feigenbaum, C. Papadimitriou, R. Sami, and S. Shenker. A bgp-based mechanism for lowest-cost routing. In Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 173–182, New York, 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Feigenbaum, C. Papadimitriou, and S. Shenker. Sharing the cost of multicast transmissions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63:21–41, 2001. Special issue on Internet Algorithms.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Golle, K. Leyton-Brown, and I. Mironov. Incentives for sharing in peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Gong, P. Lincoln, and J. Rushby. Byzantine agreement with authentication: Observations and applications in tolerating hybrid and link faults. In R. K. Iyer, M. Morganti, W. K. Fuchs, and V. Gligor, editors, Dependable Computing for Critical Applications-5, volume 10 of Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerant Systems, pages 139–157, Champaign, IL, sep 1995. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Moulin and S. Shenker. Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs:budget balance versus efficiency. Economic Theory, 18(3):511–533, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Naor, B. Pinkas, and R. Sumner. Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM conf. on Electronic Commerce, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Nisan and A. Ronen. Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35:166–196, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. A course in game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Mitchell
    • 1
  • Vanessa Teague
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations