5 ms·
This is a Byzantine agreement protocol. By definition it is a construction taking into account malicious nodes: that is what Byzantine agreement means. Table 1
by chc4 2y ago
This is a Byzantine agreement protocol. By definition it is a construction taking into account malicious nodes: that is what Byzantine agreement means. Table 1 says that this algorithm, like all the rest except one in the table, has fault tolerance 1/3 which is optimal. The second page also says "We consider the presence of a static adversary A that can
corrupt up to t out of the n ≥ 3t + 1 parties. "
- repelsteeltje 2y ago> ... static adversary A that can corrupt ... Doesn't that mean that an adversary using multiple identities would be able to do so? And therefore, some means of limiting the number of identities (through public key or prior trust) would still be desirable? What am I missing? Is this mitigated through staking?
- mike_hearn 2y agoYou're not missing anything. Systems like this assume there is a pre-created set of honest and independent nodes, which might later get hacked. They don't apply in the more realistic setting the PoW blockchain algorithm solves, where nodes can enter and leave the consensus at will and may be malicious or non-independent from the start.
- chc4 2y agoYou just do rounds of fixed sets of parties, like Ethereum proof of stake does. The set of nodes in each round are then needed to be 2/3rds honest. They then have Sybil resistance in each round as identities aren't free, since you need a stake in order to be selected for a round.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago>Is it not still a simple matter of cost? An attacker who can 51% Blockchain has enough money to overcome resource scarcity walls of any construction.