Advertisement

The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

  • Allison Lewko
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6950)

Abstract

In the wake of the decisive impossibility result of Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson for deterministic consensus protocols in the aynchronous model with just one failure, Ben-Or and Bracha demonstrated that the problem could be solved with randomness, even for Byzantine failures. Both protocols are natural and intuitive to verify, and Bracha’s achieves optimal resilience. However, the expected running time of these protocols is exponential in general. Recently, Kapron, Kempe, King, Saia, and Sanwalani presented the first efficient Byzantine agreement algorithm in the asynchronous, full information model, running in polylogarithmic time. Their algorithm is Monte Carlo and drastically departs from the simple structure of Ben-Or and Bracha’s Las Vegas algorithms.

In this paper, we begin an investigation of the question: to what extent is this departure necessary? Might there be a much simpler and intuitive Las Vegas protocol that runs in expected polynomial time? We will show that the exponential running time of Ben-Or and Bracha’s algorithms is no mere accident of their specific details, but rather an unavoidable consequence of their general symmetry and round structure. We view our result as a step toward identifying the level of complexity required for a polynomial-time algorithm in this setting, and also as a guide in the search for new efficient algorithms.

Keywords

Round Number Nonzero Probability Protocol Function Real Execution Byzantine Agreement 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Attiya, H., Censor, K.: Lower bounds for randomized consensus under a weak adversary. In: PODC, pp. 315–324 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Joseph, Z., Ben-Or, M.: A tight lower bound for randomized synchronous consensus. In: PODC, pp. 193–199 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Or, M.: Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In: PODC, pp. 27–30 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Or, M., Pavlov, E., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Byzantine agreement in the full-information model in o(log n) rounds. In: STOC, pp. 179–186 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracha, G.: An asynchronous [(n-1)/3]-resilient consensus protocol. In: PODC, pp. 154–162 (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracha, G.: An O(lg n) expected rounds randomized byzantine generals protocol. In: STOC, pp. 316–326 (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chor, B., Dwork, C.: Randomization in Byzantine Agreement. In: Advances in Computing Research, vol. 5, pp. 443–497. JAI Press, Greenwich (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolev, D., Strong, R.: Polynomial algorithms for byzatine agreement. In: STOC, pp. 401–407 (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feige, U.: Noncryptographic selection protocols. In: FOCS, pp. 142–153 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. In: PODS, pp. 1–7 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldwasser, S., Pavlov, E., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Fault-tolerant distributed computing in full-information networks. In: FOCS, pp. 15–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kapron, B.M., Kempe, D., King, V., Saia, J., Sanwalani, V.: Fast asynchronous byzantine agreement and leader election with full information. In: SODA, pp. 1038–1047 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kapron, B.M., Kempe, D., King, V., Saia, J., Sanwalani, V.: Fast asynchronous byzantine agreement and leader election with full information. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 6(4) (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    King, V., Saia, J.: From almost everywhere to everywhere: Byzantine agreement with \(\tilde{O}(n^{3/2})\) bits. In: Keidar, I. (ed.) DISC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5805, pp. 464–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    King, V., Saia, J.: Breaking the \(\textsc{O}(n^2)\) bit barrier: scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversary. In: PODC, pp. 420–429 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    King, V., Saia, J., Sanwalani, V., Vee, E.: Scalable leader election. In: SODA, pp. 990–999 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    King, V., Saia, J., Sanwalani, V., Vee, E.: Towards secure and scalable computation in peer-to-peer networks. In: FOCS, pp. 87–98 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Lewko
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations