skip to main content
10.1145/1582716.1582782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Brief announcement: global consistency can be easier than point-to-point communication

Published: 10 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Global consistency or Byzantine Agreement (BA) and reliable point-to-point communication are two of the most important and well-studied problems in distributed computing. Informally, BA is about maintaining a consistent view of the world among all the non-faulty players in the presence of faults. In a synchronous network over n nodes of which up to any t are corrupted by a Byzantine adversary, BA is possible only if all pair point-to-point reliable communication is possible [Dol82, DDWY93] Specifically, in the standard unauthenticated model, (2t + 1)-connectivity is necessary whereas in the authenticated setting (t + 1)-connectivity is required. Thus, a folklore is that maintaining global consistency is at least as hard as the problem of all pair point-to-point communication. Equivalently, it is widely believed that protocols for BA over incomplete graphs exist only if it is possible to simulate an overlay-ed complete graph. Surprisingly, we show that the folklore is far from true-- achieving global consistency can be strictly easier than all-pair point-to-point communication.
In the authenticated model, it is assumed that the adversary can forge the signatures of only those nodes under its control. In contrast, the unauthenticated model assumes that the adversary can forge the signatures of all the nodes (that is, secure signatures are not used). We initiate a study on the entire gamut of BA's in between, viz., the adversary can forge the signatures of up to any k nodes apart from the up to t nodes that it can actively corrupt. We completely characterize the possibility of BA across the spectrum. Thus, our work attempts to unify the extant literature on agreement. It is, however, more than a mere attempt towards unification as it provides insights into the field. Specifically, apart from the extremes (of k = 0 and k = n − t where aforementioned folklore is known to hold), for every intermediate k, there are several networks over which BA is possible but all-pair point-to-point communication is not.

References

[1]
{DDS87} Danny Dolev, Cynthia Dwork, and Larry Stockmeyer. On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. J. ACM, 34(1):77--97, 1987.
[2]
{DDWY93} D. Dolev, C. Dwork, O. Waarts, and M. Yung. Perfectly Secure Message Transmission. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (JACM), 40(1):17--47, January 1993.
[3]
{Dol82} D. Dolev. The Byzantine Generals Strike Again. Journal of Algorithms, 3(1):14--30, March 1982.
[4]
{FLP85} Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, and Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM, 32(2):374--382, 1985.
[5]
{Gam85} Taher El Gamal. A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. In Proceedings of CRYPTO 84 on Advances in cryptology, pages 10--18, New York, NY, USA, 1985. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
[6]
{Gar94} J. A. Garay. Reaching (and Maintaining) Agreement in the Presence of Mobile Faults. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms-WDAG '94, volume 857 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pages 253--264, 1994.
[7]
{GPV08} Craig Gentry, Chris Peikert, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan. Trapdoors for hard lattices and new cryptographic constructions. In STOC, pages 197--206, 2008.
[8]
{HKN+05} Danny Harnik, Joe Kilian, Moni Naor, Omer Reingold, and Alon Rosen. On robust combiners for oblivious transfer and other primitives. In EUROCRYPT, pages 96--113, 2005.
[9]
{Lyn96} N. Lynch. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, USA, 1996.
[10]
{MP06} Remo Meier and Bartosz Przydatek. On robust combiners for private information retrieval and other primitives. In CRYPTO, pages 555--569, 2006.
[11]
{MPW07} Remo Meier, Bartosz Przydatek, and Jüurg Wullschleger. Robuster combiners for oblivious transfer. In TCC, pages 404--418, 2007.
[12]
{PSL80} M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM, 27(2):228--234, 1980.
[13]
{Reg04} Oded Regev. New lattice-based cryptographic constructions. In J. ACM, volume 51, pages 899--942, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.
[14]
{RSA78} R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. In Communications of the ACM, volume 21, pages 120--126, 1978.
[15]
{Sha93} Adi Shamir. Efficient signature schemes based on birational permutations. In CRYPTO, pages 1--12, 1993.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
PODC '09: Proceedings of the 28th ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
August 2009
356 pages
ISBN:9781605583969
DOI:10.1145/1582716

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 August 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. agreement
  2. authentication
  3. incomplete networks
  4. reliable communication

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

PODC '09

Acceptance Rates

PODC '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 27 of 110 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 151
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 01 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media