Document Open Access Logo

Multi-Valued Connected Consensus: A New Perspective on Crusader Agreement and Adopt-Commit

Authors Hagit Attiya , Jennifer L. Welch

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.OPODIS.2023.6.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.07 MB
  • 23 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Hagit Attiya
  • Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel
Jennifer L. Welch
  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Funding

  • Attiya, Hagit: partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 22/1425).

Cite AsGet BibTex

Hagit Attiya and Jennifer L. Welch. Multi-Valued Connected Consensus: A New Perspective on Crusader Agreement and Adopt-Commit. In 27th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 286, pp. 6:1-6:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2023.6

Abstract

Algorithms to solve fault-tolerant consensus in asynchronous systems often rely on primitives such as crusader agreement, adopt-commit, and graded broadcast, which provide weaker agreement properties than consensus. Although these primitives have a similar flavor, they have been defined and implemented separately in ad hoc ways. We propose a new problem called connected consensus that has as special cases crusader agreement, adopt-commit, and graded broadcast, and generalizes them to handle multi-valued inputs. The generalization is accomplished by relating the problem to approximate agreement on graphs. We present three algorithms for multi-valued connected consensus in asynchronous message-passing systems, one tolerating crash failures and two tolerating malicious (unauthenticated Byzantine) failures. We extend the definition of binding, a desirable property recently identified as supporting binary consensus algorithms that are correct against adaptive adversaries, to the multi-valued input case and show that all our algorithms satisfy the property. Our crash-resilient algorithm has failure-resilience and time complexity that we show are optimal. When restricted to the case of binary inputs, the algorithm has improved time complexity over prior algorithms. Our two algorithms for malicious failures trade off failure resilience and time complexity. The first algorithm has time complexity that we prove is optimal but worse failure-resilience, while the second has failure-resilience that we prove is optimal but worse time complexity. When restricted to the case of binary inputs, the time complexity (as well as resilience) of the second algorithm matches that of prior algorithms. The contributions of the paper are first, a deeper insight into the connections between primitives commonly used to solve the fundamental problem of fault-tolerant consensus, and second, implementations of these primitives that can contribute to improved consensus algorithms.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
Keywords
  • graded broadcast
  • gradecast
  • binding
  • approximate agreement

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. I. Abraham, N. Ben-David, G. Stern, and S. Yandamuri. On the round complexity of asynchronous crusader agreement. In OPODIS, 2023. Google Scholar
  2. Ittai Abraham, Yonatan Amit, and Danny Dolev. Optimal resilience asynchronous approximate agreement. In OPODIS, pages 229-239. Springer, 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/11516798_17.
  3. Ittai Abraham, Naama Ben-David, and Sravya Yandamuri. Efficient and adaptively secure asynchronous binary agreement via binding crusader agreement. In 41st ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 381-391, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519270.3538426.
  4. Yehuda Afek, James Aspnes, Edo Cohen, and Danny Vainstein. Brief announcement: Object oriented consensus. In 36th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 367-369, 2017. Full version in https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/papers/vac-abstract.html. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3087801.3087867.
  5. Karolos Antoniadis, Julien Benhaim, Antoine Desjardins, Elias Poroma, Vincent Gramoli, Rachid Guerraoui, Gauthier Voron, and Igor Zablotchi. Leaderless consensus. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 176:95-113, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPDC.2023.01.009.
  6. James Aspnes. Faster randomized consensus with an oblivious adversary. In 31st ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 1-8, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2332432.2332434.
  7. Hagit Attiya, Constantin Enea, and Shafik Nassar. Faithful simulation of randomized BFT protocols on block DAGs. In Concur, 2023. URL: https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/192.
  8. Hagit Attiya and Jennifer Welch. Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations, and Advanced Topics. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1st edition, 1998. Google Scholar
  9. Michael Ben-Or and Ran El-Yaniv. Resilient-optimal interactive consistency in constant time. Distributed Computing, 16:249-262, 2003. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/S00446-002-0083-3.
  10. Erica Blum, Jonathan Katz, Chen-Da Liu-Zhang, and Julian Loss. Asynchronous Byzantine agreement with subquadratic communication. In Theory of Cryptography: 18th International Conference, TCC 2020, Durham, NC, USA, November 16-19, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 18, pages 353-380. Springer, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64375-1_13.
  11. Zohir Bouzid, Achour Mostefaoui, and Michel Raynal. Minimal synchrony for Byzantine consensus. In 34th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 461-470, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2767386.2767418.
  12. Francisco Brasileiro, Fabíola Greve, Achour Mostéfaoui, and Michel Raynal. Consensus in one communication step. In 6th International Conference on Parallel Computing Technologies, volume 2127, pages 42-50, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44743-1_4.
  13. Armando Castañeda, Sergio Rajsbaum, and Matthieu Roy. Convergence and covering on graphs for wait-free robots. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 24:1-15, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/S13173-017-0065-8.
  14. Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. J. ACM, 43(2):225-267, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/226643.226647.
  15. Ran Cohen, Pouyan Forghani, Juan Garay, Rutvik Patel, and Vassilis Zikas. Concurrent asynchronous Byzantine agreement in expected-constant rounds, revisited. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/1003, 2023. URL: https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1003.
  16. Miguel Correia, Nuno Ferreira Neves, and Paulo Veríssimo. From consensus to atomic broadcast: Time-free Byzantine-resistant protocols without signatures. The Computer Journal, 49(1):82-96, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/COMJNL/BXH145.
  17. Giovanni Deligios, Martin Hirt, and Chen-Da Liu-Zhang. Round-efficient Byzantine agreement and multi-party computation with asynchronous fallback. In 19th International Conference on Theory of Cryptography, TCC, pages 623-653, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90459-3_21.
  18. Carole Delporte-Gallet, Hugues Fauconnier, and Michel Raynal. On the weakest information on failures to solve mutual exclusion and consensus in asynchronous crash-prone read/write systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 153:110-118, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPDC.2021.03.015.
  19. Danny Dolev. The Byzantine generals strike again. Journal of Algorithms, 3(1):14-30, 1982. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6774(82)90004-9.
  20. Danny Dolev, Nancy A. Lynch, Shlomit S. Pinter, Eugene W. Stark, and William E. Weihl. Reaching approximate agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM, 33(3):499-516, 1986. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/5925.5931.
  21. Alan David Fekete. Asymptotically optimal algorithms for approximate agreement. Distributed Computing, 4:9-29, 1990. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01783662.
  22. Alan David Fekete. Asynchronous approximate agreement. Information and Computation, 115(1):95-124, 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/INCO.1994.1094.
  23. Paul Feldman and Silvio Micali. Optimal algorithms for Byzantine agreement. In 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 148-161, 1988. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/62212.62225.
  24. Pesech Feldman and Silvio Micali. An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous Byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput., 26(4):873-933, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539790187084.
  25. Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, and Mike Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM, 32(2):374-382, 1985. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3149.214121.
  26. Roy Friedman, Achour Mostéfaoui, and Michel Raynal. Simple and efficient oracle-based consensus protocols for asynchronous Byzantine systems. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., 2(1):46-56, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2005.13.
  27. Eli Gafni. Round-by-round fault detectors: unifying synchrony and asynchrony. In 17th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 143-152, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/277697.277724.
  28. Manfred Koebe. On a new class of intersection graphs. In Annals of Discrete Mathematics, volume 51, pages 141-143. Elsevier, 1992. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70618-6.
  29. Stephen R Mahaney and Fred B Schneider. Inexact agreement: Accuracy, precision, and graceful degradation. In 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 237-249, 1985. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/323596.323618.
  30. Atsuki Momose and Ling Ren. Constant latency in sleepy consensus. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 2295-2308, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3548606.3559347.
  31. Achour Mostéfaoui, Hamouma Moumen, and Michel Raynal. Signature-free asynchronous binary Byzantine consensus with t < n/3, O(n²) messages, and O(1) expected time. J. ACM, 62(4):31:1-31:21, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2785953.
  32. Achour Mostefaoui, Sergio Rajsbaum, Michel Raynal, and Corentin Travers. The combined power of conditions and information on failures to solve asynchronous set agreement. SIAM J. on Computing, 38(4):1574-1601, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/050645580.
  33. Achour Mostéfaoui and Michel Raynal. Leader-based consensus. Parallel Process. Lett., 11(1):95-107, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129626401000452.
  34. Achour Mostéfaoui and Michel Raynal. Signature-free asynchronous Byzantine systems: from multivalued to binary consensus with t < n/3, O(n²) messages, and constant time. Acta Informatica, 54(5):501-520, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-016-0269-y.
  35. Thomas Nowak and Joel Rybicki. Byzantine approximate agreement on graphs. In 33rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pages 29:1-29:17, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.DISC.2019.29.
  36. Sam Toueg. Randomized Byzantine agreements. In 3rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 163-178, 1984. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/800222.806744.
  37. Jiong Yang, Gil Neiger, and Eli Gafni. Structured derivations of consensus algorithms for failure detectors. In 17th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 297-306, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/277697.277755.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact