Skip to main content

Optimal Probabilistic Synchronous Byzantine Agreement

1988; Feldman, Micali

  • Reference work entry
  • 184 Accesses

Keywords and Synonyms

Distributed consensus; Byzantine generals problem          

Problem Definition

The Byzantine agreement problem (BA) is concerned with multiple processors (parties, “players”) all starting with some initial value, agreeing on a common value, despite the possible disruptive or even malicious behavior of some them. BA is a fundamental problem in fault-tolerant distributed computing and secure multi-party computation.

The problem was introduced by Pease, Shostak and Lamport in [18], who showed that the number of faulty processors must be less than a third of the total number of processors for the problem to have a solution. They also presented a protocol matching this bound, which requires a number of communication rounds proportional to the number of faulty processors—exactly \( { t+1 } \), where t is the number of faulty processors. Fischer and Lynch [10] later showed that this number of rounds is necessary in the worst-case run of any deterministic BA protocol. Furthermore,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   399.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Karlin and Yao [14] showed that the maximum number of faulty processors for probabilistic BA is also \( { t < \frac{n}{3} } \), where n is the total number of processors.

  2. 2.

    Indeed, it was shown by Dwork and Moses [7] that at least \( { t+1 } \) rounds are necessary for simultaneous termination. In [13], Goldreich and Petrank combine “the best of both worlds” by showing a BA protocol running in expected constant number of rounds which always terminates within \( { t+O(\log t) } \) rounds.

Recommended Reading

  1. Ben-Or, M.: Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In: Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing, 1983, pp. 27–30

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ben-Or, M., El-Yaniv, R.: Optimally-resilient interactive consistency in constant time. Distrib. Comput. 16(4), 249–262 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bracha, G.: An \( { {O}(\log n) } \) expected rounds randomized Byzantine generals protocol. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 34(4), 910–920 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Canetti, R., Rabin, T.: Fast asynchronous Byzantine agreement with optimal resilience. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, San Diego, California, 16–18 May 1993, pp. 42–51

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chor, B., Coan, B.: A simple and efficient randomized Byzantine agreement algorithm. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-11(6), 531–539 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chor, B., Dwork, C.: Randomization in Byzantine Agreement. Adv. Comput. Res. 5, 443–497 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dwork, C., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Byzantine Environment: Crash Failures. Inf. Comput. 88(2), 156–186 (1990). Preliminary version in TARK'86

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman, P.: Optimal Algorithms for Byzantine Agreement. Ph. D. thesis, MIT (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Feldman, P., Micali, S.: An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous Byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 26(4), 873–933 (1997). Preliminary version in STOC'88

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A.: A Lower Bound for the Time to Assure Interactive Consistency. Inf. Process. Lett. 14(4), 183–186 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty processor. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldreich, O.: Foundations of Cryptography, Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001), (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldreich, O., Petrank, E.: The Best of Both Worlds: Guaranteeing Termination in Fast Randomized Agreement Protocols. Inf. Process. Lett. 36(1), 45–49 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Karlin, A., Yao, A.C.: Probabilistic lower bounds for the byzantine generals problem. Unpublished manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  15. Katz, J., Koo, C.: On Expected Constant-Round Protocols for Byzantine Agreement. In: Proceedings of Advances in Cryptology–CRYPTO 2006, Santa Barbara, California, August 2006, pp. 445–462. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 382–401 (1982)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Lynch, N.: Distributed Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabin, M.: Randomized Byzantine Generals. In: Proc. 24th Anual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1983, pp. 403–409

    Google Scholar 

  20. Turpin, R., Coan, B.A.: Extending binary Byzantine Agreement to multivalued Byzantine Agreement. Inf. Process. Lett. 18(2), 73–76 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag

About this entry

Cite this entry

Garay, J. (2008). Optimal Probabilistic Synchronous Byzantine Agreement. In: Kao, MY. (eds) Encyclopedia of Algorithms. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30162-4_269

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics