Paper detail

Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience via Statistical Fraud Detection

Since the mid-1980s it has been known that Byzantine Agreement can be solved with probability 1 asynchronously, even against an omniscient, computationally unbounded adversary that can adaptively \emph{corrupt} up to $f<n/3$ parties. Moreover, the problem is insoluble with $f\geq n/3$ corruptions. However, Bracha&#39;s 1984 protocol achieved $f<n/3$ resilience at the cost of exponential expected latency $2^{Θ(n)}$, a bound that has never been improved in this model with $f=\lfloor (n-1)/3 \rfloor$ corruptions. In this paper we prove that Byzantine Agreement in the asynchronous, full information model can be solved with probability 1 against an adaptive adversary that can corrupt $f<n/3$ parties, while incurring only polynomial latency with high probability. Our protocol follows earlier polynomial latency protocols of King and Saia and Huang, Pettie, and Zhu, which had suboptimal resilience, namely $f \approx n/10^9$ and $f<n/4$, respectively. Resilience $f=(n-1)/3$ is uniquely difficult as this is the point at which the influence of the Byzantine and honest players are of roughly equal strength. The core technical problem we solve is to design a collective coin-flipping protocol that eventually lets us flip a coin with an unambiguous outcome. In the beginning the influence of the Byzantine players is too powerful to overcome and they can essentially fix the coin&#39;s behavior at will. We guarantee that after just a polynomial number of executions of the coin-flipping protocol, either (a) the Byzantine players fail to fix the behavior of the coin (thereby ending the game) or (b) we can ``blacklist&#39;&#39; players such that the blacklisting rate for Byzantine players is at least as large as the blacklisting rate for good players. The blacklisting criterion is based on a simple statistical test of fraud detection.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.