Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lower Bounds for Asynchronous Consensus

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Future Directions in Distributed Computing

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2584))

Abstract

Consensus is usually expressed in terms of agreement among a set of processes. Instead, we characterize it in terms of three classes of agents: Proposers A proposer can propose values. Acceptors The acceptors cooperate in some way to choose a single proposed value. Learners A learner can learn what value has been chosen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pages 173–186. ACM, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernadette Charron-Bost and André Schiper. Uniform consensus is harder than consensus (extended abstract). Technical Report DSC/2000/028, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, May 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cynthia Dwork, Nancy Lynch, and Larry Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 35(2):288–323, April 1988.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Michael J. Fischer, Nancy Lynch, and Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374–382, April 1985.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Leslie Lamport. The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2):133–169, May 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marshall Pease, Robert Shostak, and Leslie Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27(2):228–234, April 1980.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research, USA

    Leslie Lamport

Authors
  1. Leslie Lamport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté Informatique et Communication, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, IN-Ecublens, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    André Schiper

  2. Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Unit 3155, 06269, Storrs, CT, USA

    Alex A. Shvartsman

  3. Computer Science Division, University of California at Berkeley, 447/443 Soda Hall, 94704-1776, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Hakim Weatherspoon  & Ben Y. Zhao  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lamport, L. (2003). Lower Bounds for Asynchronous Consensus. In: Schiper, A., Shvartsman, A.A., Weatherspoon, H., Zhao, B.Y. (eds) Future Directions in Distributed Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2584. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-37795-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-37795-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00912-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37795-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation