Abstract
Byzantine agreement (BA) is a fundamental primitive in distributed systems and has received huge interest as an important building block for blockchain systems. Classical byzantine agreement considers a setting where n parties with fixed, known identities want to agree on an output in the presence of an adversary. Motivated by blockchain systems, the assumption of fixed identities is weakened by using a resource-based model. In such models, parties do not have fixed known identities but instead have to invest some expensive resources to participate in the protocol. Prominent examples for such resources are computation (measured by, e.g., proofs-of-work) or money (measured by proofs-of-stake). Unlike in the classical setting where BA without trusted setup (e.g., a PKI or an unpredictable beacon) is impossible for \(t \ge n/3\) corruptions, in such resource-based models, BA can be constructed for the optimal threshold of \(t <n/2\). In this work, we investigate BA without a PKI in the model where parties have restricted computational resources. Concretely, we consider sequential computation modeled via computing a verifiable delay function (VDF) and establish the following results:
-
1.
Positive result: We present the first protocol for BA based on VDFs, with expected constant round complexity and termination under adaptive corruption, honest majority and without a PKI.
-
2.
Negative result: We give the first lower bound on the communication complexity of BA in a model where parties have restricted computational resources. Concretely, we show that a multicast complexity of O(\(\sqrt{n}\)) is necessary even if the parties have access to a \(\textsf{VDF}\)-oracle.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The construction in [26] uses only a proof of sequential work as opposed to a VDF.
References
Abraham, I., et al.: Communication complexity of Byzantine agreement, revisited. In: Robinson, P., Ellen, F. (eds.) 38th ACM PODC, pp. 317–326. ACM (2019)
Abraham, I., Devadas, S., Dolev, D., Nayak, K., Ren, L.: Synchronous Byzantine agreement with expected \(O\)(1) rounds, expected \(O(n^2)\) communication, and optimal resilience. In: Goldberg, I., Moore, T. (eds.) FC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11598, pp. 320–334. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_20
Aggarwal, A., et al.: Bootstrapping public blockchains without a trusted setup. In: Robinson, P., Ellen, F. (eds.) 38th ACM PODC, pp. 366–368. ACM (2019)
Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S.: PoW-based distributed cryptography with no trusted setup. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 379–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_19
van Baarsen, A., Stevens, M.: On time-lock cryptographic assumptions in abelian hidden-order groups. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, p. 1184 (2021)
Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: Denning, D.E., et al. (eds.) ACM CCS 1993, pp. 62–73. ACM Press (1993)
“Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system” (2008)
Boneh, D., Bonneau, J., Bünz, B., Fisch, B.: Verifiable delay functions. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018, Part I. LNCS, vol. 10991, pp. 757–788. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96884-1_25
Buterin, V.: Ethereum white paper (2013)
Cohen, B., Pietrzak, K.: The chia network blockchain. Technical report, Chia Network (2019)
Cohen, R., et al.: Adaptively secure broadcast in resource-restricted cryptography. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2021/775 (2021). https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/775
Das, P., et al.: Round efficient Byzantine agreement from VDFs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2022/823 (2022). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/823
Dolev, D., Strong, H.R.: Authenticated algorithms for Byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 12(4), 656–666 (1983)
Douceur, J.R.: The Sybil attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 251–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45748-8_24
Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 139–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_10
Feldman, P., Micali, S.: Optimal algorithms for Byzantine agreement. In: 20th ACM STOC, pp. 148–161. ACM Press (1988)
De Feo, L., Masson, S., Petit, C., Sanso, A.: Verifiable delay functions from supersingular isogenies and pairings. In: Galbraith, S.D., Moriai, S. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2019, Part I. LNCS, vol. 11921, pp. 248–277. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34578-5_10
Ganesh, C., Kondi, Y., Patra, A., Sarkar, P.: Efficient adaptively secure zero-knowledge from garbled circuits. In: Abdalla, M., Dahab, R. (eds.) PKC 2018, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10770, pp. 499–529. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76581-5_17
Garay, J.A., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N., Panagiotakos, G.: Bootstrapping the blockchain, with applications to consensus and fast PKI setup. In: Abdalla, M., Dahab, R. (eds.) PKC 2018, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10770, pp. 465–495. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76581-5_16
Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Shen, Y.: Proof-of-work-based consensus in expected-constant time. In: Joye, M., Leander, G. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2024, Part III. LNCS, vol. 14653, pp. 96–125. Springer, Cham (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58734-4_4
Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Ostrovsky, R.M., Panagiotakos, G., Zikas, V.: Resource-restricted cryptography: revisiting MPC bounds in the proof-of-work era. In: Canteaut, A., Ishai, Y. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2020, Part II. LNCS, vol. 12106, pp. 129–158. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45724-2_5
Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 281–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_10
Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols(extended abstract). In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Secure Information Networks. ITIFIP, vol. 23, pp. 258–272. Springer, Boston, MA (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18
Katz, J., Koo, C.-Y.: On expected constant-round protocols for Byzantine agreement. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 445–462. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11818175_27
Katz, J., Loss, J., Xu, J.: On the security of time-lock puzzles and timed commitments. In: Pass, R., Pietrzak, K. (eds.) TCC 2020, Part III. LNCS, vol. 12552, pp. 390–413. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64381-2_14
Katz, J., et al.: Pseudonymous broadcast and secure computation from cryptographic puzzles. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2014/857 (2014). https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/857
Kerber, T.: Ouroboros crypsinous: privacy-preserving proof-of-stake. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 May, pp. 157–174. IEEE (2019)
Micali, S.: Very simple and efficient Byzantine agreement. In: Papadimitriou, C.H. (ed.) ITCS 2017, vol. 4266. 67: LIPIcs, pp. 6:1–6:1 (2017)
Micali, S., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Optimal and player-replaceable consensus with an honest majority (2017)
Pass, R., Seeman, L., Shelat, A.: Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 643–673. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_22
Pietrzak, K.: Proofs of catalytic space. In: Blum, A. (ed.) ITCS 2019. LIPIcs, vol. 124, pp. 59:1–59:25 (2019)
Rabin, M.O.: Randomized Byzantine generals. In: 24th FOCS, pp. 403–409. IEEE Computer Society Press (1983)
Wan, J., Xiao, H., Devadas, S., Shi, E.: Round-efficient Byzantine broadcast under strongly adaptive and majority corruptions. In: Pass, R., Pietrzak, K. (eds.) TCC 2020, Part I. LNCS, vol. 12550, pp. 412–456. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64375-1_15
Wesolowski, B.: Efficient verifiable delay functions. In: Ishai, Y., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2019, Part III. LNCS, vol. 11478, pp. 379–407. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_13
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the German Research Foundation DFG - SFB 1119 - 236615297 (CROSSING Project S7), by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) iBlockchain Project (grant nr. 16KIS0902), by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts within their joint support of the National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Das, P., Eckey, L., Faust, S., Loss, J., Maitra, M. (2024). Round Efficient Byzantine Agreement from VDFs. In: Galdi, C., Phan, D.H. (eds) Security and Cryptography for Networks. SCN 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14973. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71070-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71070-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-71069-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-71070-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)