Paper detail

Experimental Evaluation of Asynchronous Binary Byzantine Consensus Algorithms with $t < n/3$ and $O(n^2)$ Messages and $O(1)$ Round Expected Termination

This work performs an experimental evaluation of four asynchronous binary Byzantine consensus algorithms [11,16,18] in various configurations. In addition to being asynchronous these algorithms run in rounds, tolerate up to one third of faulty nodes, use $O(n^2)$ messages, and use randomized common coins to terminate in an expected constant number of rounds. Each of the four algorithms have different requirements for the random coin, for the number of messages needed per round, whether or not cryptographic signatures are needed, among other details. Two different non-interactive threshold common coin implementations are tested, one using threshold signatures, and one based on the Diffe-Hellman problem using validity proofs [11]. Experiments are run in single data center and geo-distributed configurations with between $4$ and $48$ nodes. Various simple faulty behaviors are tested. As no algorithm performs best in all experimental conditions, two new algorithms introduced that simply combine properties of the existing algorithms with the goal of having good performance in the majority of experimental settings.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.