HackerPapers

arXiv:1905.10895cs.DC

FPC-BI: Fast Probabilistic Consensus within Byzantine Infrastructures

Serguei Popov, William J Buchanan

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

This paper presents a novel leaderless protocol (FPC-BI: Fast Probabilistic Consensus within Byzantine Infrastructures) with a low communicational complexity and which allows a set of nodes to come to a consensus on a value of a single bit. The paper makes the assumption that part of the nodes are Byzantine, and are thus controlled by an adversary who intends to either delay the consensus, or break it (this defines that at least a couple of honest nodes come to different conclusions). We prove that, nevertheless, the protocol works with high probability when its parameters are suitably chosen. Along this the paper also provides explicit estimates on the probability that the protocol finalizes in the consensus state in a given time. This protocol could be applied to reaching consensus in decentralized cryptocurrency systems. A special feature of it is that it makes use of a sequence of random numbers which are either provided by a trusted source or generated by the nodes themselves using some decentralized random number generating protocol. This increases the overall trustworthiness of the infrastructure. A core contribution of the paper is that it uses a very weak consensus to obtain a strong consensus on the value of a bit, and which can relate to the validity of a transaction.

arXiv comments
30 pages, 4 figures; final version
Journal reference
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Volume 147, January 2021, pages 77-86
DOI
doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2020.09.002
Subjects
cs.DCDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing math.PRProbability

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Jun 2021 to Jun 2021. Found in 1 HN submission from May 2019 to May 2019. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • There are a lot of negative comments on this thread. I think a lot of the criticism is valid, but also somewhat out of date. I've followed this project for quite some time and it's true that the original version of IOTA in 2017 was deeply flawed, used some questionable (to say…

      epF8fYView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.