Scalable Byzantine Agreement with a Random Beacon

  • Olumuyiwa Oluwasanmi
  • Jared Saia
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7596)


We present two Monte Carlo algorithms for efficiently computing Byzantine agreement in the partially synchronous communication model. The algorithms assume the existence of a Random Beacon, which is a stream of random bits, known to all the processors. Both algorithms terminate in O(1) expected time. The first algorithm sends O(M + nlog2 n) messages in total, where M is the maximum number of messages sent by the bad processors in any round and n is the number of processors. It ensures all processors reach agreement. The second algorithm sends \(\tilde{O}(1)\) messages per processor, and is thus load-balanced, and ensures all but a o(1) fraction of the processors reach agreement. Both algorithms succeed with probability 1 − O(1/n k ), even against an adaptive adversary that takes over up to a 1/3 − ε fraction of the processors for any ε > 0. We prove the correctness of both algorithms and provide empirical evidence that they require significantly less bandwidth than previous algorithms for networks of size greater than 4,000 processors. Our algorithms work in the full-information model and thus make no cryptographic assumptions.


Request Message Byzantine Agreement Adaptive Adversary Cryptographic Assumption Chernoff Bound 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lesk, M.: Cybersecurity and economics. IEEE Security Privacy 9(6), 76–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (GAO), U.G.A.O.: Cybercrime: Public and private entities face challenges in addressing cyber threats (June 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rabin, M.O.: Transaction protection by beacons. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 27, 256–267 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maurer, U.M.: Conditionally-perfect secrecy and a provably-secure randomized cipher. Journal of Cryptology 5, 53–66 (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cachin, C., Maurer, U.M.: Unconditional Security against Memory-Bounded Adversaries. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 292–306. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aumann, Y., Rabin, M.O.: Information Theoretically Secure Communication in the Limited Storage Space Model. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dziembowski, S., Maurer, U.: Tight security proofs for the bounded-storage model. In: Proceedings of the Thiry-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2002, pp. 341–350. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lysyanskaya, A.: Efficient threshold and proactive cryptography secure against the adaptive adversary (extended abstract)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 382–401 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolev, D.: The byzantine generals strike again. J. Algorithms 3(1), 14–30 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolev, D., Reischuk, R.: Bounds on information exchange for byzantine agreement. J. ACM 32(1), 191–204 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rabin, M.: Randomized Byzantine generals. In: Proc. Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 403–409 (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karlin, A., Yao., A.C.C.: Probabilistic lower bounds for byzantine agreement. Manuscript (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feldman, P., Micali, S.: An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 26(4), 873–933 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    King, V., Saia, J.: Breaking the O(n 2) bit barrier: scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversary. In: PODC, pp. 420–429. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    King, V., Saia, J.: From almost everywhere to everywhere: Byzantine agreement with \(\tilde{O}(n^{3/2})\) bits. In: To appear in Proceedings of DISC 2009: 23rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing, Elche/Elx, Spain, September 23-25 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oluwasanmi, O., Saia, J., King, V.: An empirical study of a scalable byzantine agreement algorithm. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel Distributed Processing, Workshops and Phd Forum (IPDPSW), pp. 1–13 (April 2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dwork, C., Peleg, D., Pippenger, N., Upfal, E.: Fault tolerance in networks of bounded degree. In: STOC 1986: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 370–379. ACM Press, New York (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cachin, C., Kursawe, K., Shoup, V.: Random oracles in constantipole: practical asynchronous byzantine agreement using cryptography (extended abstract). In: PODC 2000: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 123–132. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, H.H., Chang, E.-c., Chan, M.C.: Pervasive Random Beacon in the Internet for Covert Coordination. In: Barni, M., Herrera-Joancomartí, J., Katzenbeisser, S., Pérez-González, F. (eds.) IH 2005. LNCS, vol. 3727, pp. 53–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: On the use of financial data as a random beacon. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2010, pp. 1–8. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eastlake 3rd, D.: Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection. RFC 2777 (Informational) (February 2000), Obsoleted by RFC 3797Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eastlake 3rd, D.: Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection. RFC 3797 (Informational) (June 2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhatele, A., Laxmikant, V.: An evaluative study on the effect of contention on message latencies in large supercomputers. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel&Distributed Processing, pp. 1–8. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olumuyiwa Oluwasanmi
    • 1
  • Jared Saia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations