Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Fully-Distributed Byzantine Agreement in Sparse Networks (2410.20865v1)

Published 28 Oct 2024 in cs.DC and cs.DS

Abstract: Byzantine agreement is a fundamental problem in fault-tolerant distributed networks that has been studied intensively for the last four decades. Most of these works designed protocols for complete networks. A key goal in Byzantine protocols is to tolerate as many Byzantine nodes as possible. The work of Dwork, Peleg, Pippenger, and Upfal [STOC 1986, SICOMP 1988] was the first to address the Byzantine agreement problem in sparse, bounded degree networks and presented a protocol that achieved almost-everywhere agreement among honest nodes. In such networks, all known Byzantine agreement protocols (e.g., Dwork, Peleg, Pippenger, and Upfal, STOC 1986; Upfal, PODC 1992; King, Saia, Sanwalani, and Vee, FOCS 2006) that tolerated a large number of Byzantine nodes had a major drawback that they were not fully-distributed -- in those protocols, nodes are required to have initial knowledge of the entire network topology. This drawback makes such protocols inapplicable to real-world communication networks such as peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, which are typically sparse and bounded degree and where nodes initially have only local knowledge of themselves and their neighbors. Indeed, a fundamental open question raised by the above works is whether one can design Byzantine protocols that tolerate a large number of Byzantine nodes in sparse networks that work with only local knowledge, i.e., fully-distributed protocols. The work of Augustine, Pandurangan, and Robinson [PODC 2013] presented the first fully-distributed Byzantine agreement protocol that works in sparse networks, but it tolerated only up to $O(\sqrt{n}/ polylog(n))$ Byzantine nodes (where $n$ is the total network size). We answer the earlier open question by presenting fully-distributed Byzantine agreement protocols for sparse, bounded degree networks that tolerate significantly more Byzantine nodes -- up to $O(n/ polylog(n))$ of them.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (43)
  1. A fully-distributed scalable peer-to-peer protocol for byzantine-resilient distributed hash tables. In Kunal Agrawal and I-Ting Angelina Lee, editors, SPAA ’22: 34th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 11 - 14, 2022, pages 87–98. ACM, 2022. doi:10.1145/3490148.3538588.
  2. Scalable and secure computation among strangers: Message-competitive byzantine protocols. In Hagit Attiya, editor, 34th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2020), volume 179 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 31:1–31:19, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2020. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. URL: https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2020/13109, doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2020.31.
  3. Storage and search in dynamic peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA ’13, pages 53–62, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2486159.2486170, doi:10.1145/2486159.2486170.
  4. Fast byzantine agreement in dynamic networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’13, pages 74–83, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2484239.2484275, doi:10.1145/2484239.2484275.
  5. Fast byzantine leader election in dynamic networks. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Distributed Computing - Volume 9363, DISC 2015, pages 276–291, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48653-5_19.
  6. Distributed algorithmic foundations of dynamic networks. SIGACT News, 47(1):69–98, 2016. doi:10.1145/2902945.2902959.
  7. Enabling robust and efficient distributed computation in dynamic peer-to-peer networks. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS ’15, pages 350–369, October 2015. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2015.29.
  8. Towards robust and efficient computation in dynamic peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’12, pages 551–569, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2095116.2095163.
  9. Michael Ben-Or. Another advantage of free choice (extended abstract): Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’83, pages 27–30, New York, NY, USA, 1983. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/800221.806707.
  10. Collective coin flipping, robust voting schemes and minima of banzhaf values. In 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Portland, Oregon, USA, 21-23 October 1985, pages 408–416. IEEE Computer Society, 1985. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1985.15.
  11. Byzantine agreement in the full-information model in O⁢(log⁡n)𝑂𝑛O(\log{n})italic_O ( roman_log italic_n ) rounds. In Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’06, pages 179–186, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1132516.1132543, doi:10.1145/1132516.1132543.
  12. Agreement in the presence of faults, on networks of bounded degree. Inf. Process. Lett., 57(6):329–334, 1996. doi:10.1016/0020-0190(96)00015-4.
  13. Cloture votes: (n4)𝑛4(\frac{n}{4})( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG )-Resilient distributed consensus in (t+1)𝑡1(t+1)( italic_t + 1 ) rounds. Mathematical Systems Theory, 26(1):3–19, 1993. doi:10.1007/BF01187072.
  14. Fast consensus in networks of bounded degree. Distributed Computing, 7(2):67–73, December 1993. doi:10.1007/BF02280836.
  15. Sampling regular graphs and a peer-to-peer network. Combinatorics, Probability, and Computing, 16(4):557–593, July 2007. doi:10.1017/S0963548306007978.
  16. Fraud detection for random walks. In Venkatesan Guruswami, editor, 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2024, January 30 to February 2, 2024, Berkeley, CA, USA, volume 287 of LIPIcs, pages 36:1–36:22. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.36, doi:10.4230/LIPICS.ITCS.2024.36.
  17. Stabilizing consensus with the power of two choices. In Rajmohan Rajaraman and Friedhelm Meyer auf der Heide, editors, SPAA 2011: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, San Jose, CA, USA, June 4-6, 2011 (Co-located with FCRC 2011), pages 149–158. ACM, 2011.
  18. Danny Dolev. The byzantine generals strike again. J. Algorithms, 3(1):14–30, 1982. doi:10.1016/0196-6774(82)90004-9.
  19. Bounds on information exchange for byzantine agreement. J. ACM, 32(1):191–204, 1985. doi:10.1145/2455.214112.
  20. Concentration of Measure for the Analysis of Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  21. Fault tolerance in networks of bounded degree. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(5):975–988, 1988. Conference version in STOC 1986. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/0217061, doi:10.1137/0217061.
  22. An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(4):873–933, August 1997. doi:10.1137/S0097539790187084.
  23. Fault-tolerant computation in the full information model. SIAM J. Comput., 27(2):506–544, 1998. doi:10.1137/S0097539793246689.
  24. Fault-tolerant distributed computing in full-information networks. In 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06), pages 15–26, October 2006. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2006.30.
  25. Vassos Hadzilacos. Issues of fault tolerance in concurrent computations. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1984.
  26. Message-optimal protocols for byzantine agreement. Math. Syst. Theory, 26(1):41–102, 1993. doi:10.1007/BF01187074.
  27. Expander graphs and their applications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 43(4):439–561, 2006.
  28. Stochastic analysis of a churn-tolerant structured peer-to-peer scheme. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 6(1):1–14, March 2013. doi:10.1007/s12083-012-0124-z.
  29. Fast asynchronous byzantine agreement and leader election with full information. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 6(4):68:1–68:28, September 2010. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1824777.1824788, doi:10.1145/1824777.1824788.
  30. Breaking the O⁢(n2)𝑂superscript𝑛2O(n^{2})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bit barrier: Scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversary. Journal of the ACM, 58(4):18:1–18:24, July 2011. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1989727.1989732, doi:10.1145/1989727.1989732.
  31. Scalable leader election. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’06, pages 990–999, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2006. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1109557.1109667.
  32. Towards secure and scalable computation in peer-to-peer networks. In 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06), pages 87–98, October 2006. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2006.77.
  33. Sublinear bounds for randomized leader election. Theoretical Computer Science, 561:134–143, 2015. Special Issue on Distributed Computing and Networking. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397514001029, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.02.009.
  34. Distributed construction of random expander networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428), volume 3, pages 2133–2143 vol.3, March 2003. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2003.1209234.
  35. Distributed random digraph transformations for peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA ’06, pages 308–317, New York, NY, USA, 2006. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1148109.1148162.
  36. Perigee: Efficient peer-to-peer network design for blockchains. In Proceedings of the 39th Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’20, pages 428–437, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3382734.3405704.
  37. Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom, 2ndsuperscript2nd2^{\text{nd}}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT nd end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT edition, 2017.
  38. Edgar M. Palmer. Graphical Evolution: An Introduction to the Theory of Random Graphs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 1985.
  39. Building low-diameter peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(6):995–1002, August 2003. Conference version: IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2001. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2003.814666.
  40. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27(2):228–234, April 1980. doi:10.1145/322186.322188.
  41. David Peleg. Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2000. URL: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9780898719772, arXiv:https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9780898719772, doi:10.1137/1.9780898719772.
  42. Michael O. Rabin. Randomized byzantine generals. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS ’83, pages 403–409, USA, 1983. IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1983.48.
  43. Eli Upfal. Tolerating a linear number of faults in networks of bounded degree. Information and Computation, 115(2):312–320, 1994. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540184710996, doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1994.1099.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Whiteboard

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.