An O(lg n) expected rounds randomized Byzantine generals protocol
STOC '85 Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Optimal algorithms for Byzantine agreement
STOC '88 Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Simple constant-time consensus protocols in realistic failure models
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: a tutorial
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Fast asynchronous Byzantine agreement with optimal resilience
STOC '93 Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Randomized algorithms
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Fully Polynomial Byzantine Agreement for Processors in Rounds
SIAM Journal on Computing
Muteness detectors for consensus with Byzantine processes
PODC '98 Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Lower bounds for distributed coin-flipping and randomized consensus
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
The Byzantine Generals Problem
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
A Versatile Family of Consensus Protocols Based on Chandra-Toueg's Unreliable Failure Detectors
IEEE Transactions on Computers
Encapsulating Failure Detection: From Crash to Byzantine Failures
Ada-Europe '02 Proceedings of the 7th Ada-Europe International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies
Another advantage of free choice (Extended Abstract): Completely asynchronous agreement protocols
PODC '83 Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
An asynchronous [(n - 1)/3]-resilient consensus protocol
PODC '84 Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Randomized Byzantine Agreements
PODC '84 Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Consensus and Membership in Synchronous and Asynchronous Distributed Systems
Consensus and Membership in Synchronous and Asynchronous Distributed Systems
Low complexity Byzantine-resilient consensus
Distributed Computing
IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing
Distributed computing in SOSP and OSDI
ACM SIGACT News
Research note: On Byzantine generals with alternative plans
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing
Bosco: One-Step Byzantine Asynchronous Consensus
DISC '08 Proceedings of the 22nd international symposium on Distributed Computing
Byzantine Consensus with Unknown Participants
OPODIS '08 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems
Byzantine consensus with few synchronous links
OPODIS'07 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Principles of distributed systems
Signature-free broadcast-based intrusion tolerance: never decide a Byzantine value
OPODIS'10 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Principles of distributed systems
A necessary and sufficient synchrony condition for solving Byzantine consensus in symmetric networks
ICDCN'11 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Distributed computing and networking
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper is on the Consensus problem in asynchronous distributed systems where (up to f) processes (among n) can exhibit a Byzantine behavior, i.e., can deviate arbitrarily from their specification. One way to solve the Consensus problem in such a context consists of enriching the system with additional oracles that are powerful enough to cope with the uncertainty and unpredictability created by the combined effect of Byzantine behavior and asynchrony. This paper presents two kinds of Byzantine asynchronous Consensus protocols using two types of oracles, namely, a common coin that provides processes with random values and a failure detector oracle. Both allow the processes to decide in one communication step in favorable circumstances. The first is a randomized protocol for an oblivious scheduler model that assumes n5f. The second one is a failure detector-based protocol that assumes n6f. These protocols are designed to be particularly simple and efficient in terms of communication steps, the number of messages they generate in each step, and the size of messages. So, although they are not optimal in the number of Byzantine processes that can be tolerated, they are particularly efficient when we consider the number of communication steps they require to decide and the number and size of the messages they use. In that sense, they are practically appealing.