Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3465084.3467953acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Brief Announcement: Malicious Security Comes for Free in Consensus with Leaders

Published: 23 July 2021 Publication History

Abstract

We consider consensus protocols in the model that is most commonly considered for use in state machine replication, as initiated by Dwork-Lynch-Stockmeyer, then by Castro-Liskov in 1999 with "PBFT." Such protocols guarantee, assuming n players out of which t < n/3 are maliciously corrupted, that the honest players output the same valid value within a finite number of messages, after the (unknown) point in time where both: the network becomes synchronous, and a designated player (the leader) is honest. The state of the art (Hotstuff, PODC'19), achieves linear communication complexity, but at the cost of additional latency, due to one more round-trip with the leader. Furthermore, it relies on constant-size threshold signatures schemes (TSS), for which all prior-known constructions require a costly interactive (or trusted) setup. We remove all of these limitations. The communication bottleneck of PBFT lies in the subprotocol, denoted as "view change," in which the leader forwards 2t+1 signed messages to each player. Then, each player checks that these 2t+1 messages satisfy some predicate, which we denote "non-supermajority''. We replace this with a responsive subprotocol, with linear communication complexity, that enables players to check this predicate. Its construction is elementary, since it requires only black box use of any TSS. In the full version of our paper \citemalicious2 we achieve three things. Firstly, we further optimize this subprotocol from succinct arguments of many signed messages, which we instantiate from Attema-Cramer-Rambaud \cite[2021-3-9 version]ACR20. As an introduction to these methods, we discuss here the simplest case, which is the construction in \citeACR20 of the first logarithmic-sized TSS with transparent setup. Second, we also address another complexity challenge pointed in Hotstuff, namely, that protocols with fast termination in favorable runs, have so far quadratic complexity, due to an even more complex view change. Third, we enable halting in finite time with (amortized) linear complexity, which was an unsolved question so far when external validity is required.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (ba570_videoLast.mp4)
We introduce an elementary subprotocol, denoted "phase change", that is instantiable from any threshold signature scheme, allowing a prover to convince that a value is the highest one that was reported to him by k-out-of-n players. This enables to remove, without cost, the extra latency which was previously added in [Hotstuff, Podc'19] in order to achieve linear complexity in leader-based Byzantine consensus. We then sketch a more powerful tool: proofs of knowledge of signed messages, on the example of the first setup-free logarithmic sized threshold signature.

References

[1]
Ittai Abraham, T.-H. Hubert Chan, Danny Dolev, Kartik Nayak, Rafael Pass, Ling Ren, and Elaine Shi. 2019. Communication Complexity of Byzantine Agreement, Revisited. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2019, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 29 - August 2, 2019. ACM, 317--326.
[2]
Ittai Abraham, Guy Gueta, and Dahlia Malkhi. 2018. Hot-Stuff the Linear, Optimal-Resilience, One-Message BFT Devil. CoRR, Vol. abs/1803.05069 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/406.
[3]
Ittai Abraham, Guy Gueta, Dahlia Malkhi, Lorenzo Alvisi, Ramakrishna Kotla, and Jean-Philippe Martin. 2017. Revisiting Fast Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. CoRR, Vol. abs/1712.01367 (2017).
[4]
Ittai Abraham, Philipp Jovanovic, Mary Maller, Sarah Meiklejohn, Gilad Stern, and Alin Tomescu. 2021. Reaching Consensus for Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation. In Podc'21 .
[5]
Mark Abspoel, Thomas Attema, and Matthieu Rambaud. 2020. Malicious Security Comes for Free in Consensus with Leaders. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/1480. version 2021-04--26 https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1480.
[6]
Thomas Attema and Ronald Cramer. 2020. Compressed Sigma-Protocol Theory and Practical Application to Plug & Play Secure Algorithmics. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2020 - 40th Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2020, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 17--21, 2020, Proceedings, Part III (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12172). Springer, 513--543.
[7]
Thomas Attema, Ronald Cramer, and Serge Fehr. 2021. Compressing Proofs of k-Out-Of-n Partial Knowledge. Crypto'21 (2021).
[8]
Thomas Attema, Ronald Cramer, and Matthieu Rambaud. 2020. Compressed Sigma-Protocols for Bilinear Circuits and Applications. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/1447. version 2021/3/10 https://eprint.iacr.org/eprint-bin/getfile.pl?entry=2020/1447&version=20210310:160359&file=1447.pdf.
[9]
Pierre-Louis Aublin, Rachid Guerraoui, Nikola Knezevic, Vivien Qué ma, and Marko Vukolic. 2015. The Next 700 BFT Protocols. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., Vol. 32, 4 (2015), 12:1--12:45.
[10]
Christian Badertscher, Ueli Maurer, Daniel Tschudi, and Vassilis Zikas. 2017. Bitcoin as a Transaction Ledger: A Composable Treatment. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2017 - 37th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 20--24, 2017, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, 324--356.
[11]
Michael Ben-Or. 1983. Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 17--19, 1983. ACM, 27--30.
[12]
Piotr Berman and Juan A. Garay. 1989. Asymptotically optimal distributed consensus. In Automata, Languages and Programming .
[13]
Erica Blum, Jonathan Katz, Chen-Da Liu Zhang, and Julian Loss. 2020. Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Subquadratic Communication. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., Vol. 2020 (2020), 851.
[14]
Dan Boneh, Ben Lynn, and Hovav Shacham. 2001. Short Signatures from the Weil Pairing. In ASIACRYPT (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2248). Springer, 514--532.
[15]
Dan Boneh, Ben Lynn, and Hovav Shacham. 2004. Short Signatures from the Weil Pairing. J. Cryptology, Vol. 17 (2004), 297--319.
[16]
Ethan Buchman. 2016. Tendermint: Byzantine Fault Tolerance in the Age of Blockchains . Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Guelph.
[17]
Vitalik Buterin and Virgil Griffith. 2017. Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget. CoRR, Vol. abs/1710.09437 (2017).
[18]
Christian Cachin, Klaus Kursawe, Frank Petzold, and Victor Shoup. 2001. Secure and Efficient Asynchronous Broadcast Protocols. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2001, 21st Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 19--23, 2001, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2139). Springer, 524--541.
[19]
Ran Canetti and Tal Rabin. 1993. Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing .
[20]
Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. 1999. Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (New Orleans, Louisiana, USA) (OSDI '99). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA.
[21]
Cynthia Dwork, Nancy A. Lynch, and Larry J. Stockmeyer. 1988. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. J. ACM (1988).
[22]
Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, and Mike Paterson. 1985. Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. J. ACM, Vol. 32, 2 (1985), 374--382.
[23]
Peter Gazi, Aggelos Kiayias, and Alexander Russell. 2020. Tight Consistency Bounds for Bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security .
[24]
Guy Golan-Gueta, Ittai Abraham, Shelly Grossman, Dahlia Malkhi, Benny Pinkas, Michael K. Reiter, Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi, Orr Tamir, and Alin Tomescu. 2018. SBFT: a Scalable Decentralized Trust Infrastructure for Blockchains. CoRR, Vol. abs/1804.01626 (2018). arxiv: 1804.01626 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01626
[25]
Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Alexander Spiegelman, and Dahlia Malkhi. 2020. Asynchronous Distributed Key Generation for Computationally-Secure Randomness, Consensus, and Threshold Signatures. In ACM CCS 2020 .
[26]
Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Michael Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund L. Wong. 2009. Zyzzyva: Speculative Byzantine fault tolerance. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., Vol. 27, 4 (2009), 7:1--7:39.
[27]
Leslie Lamport. 1998. The Part-time Parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., Vol. 16, 2 (May 1998), 133--169.
[28]
Leslie Lamport, Robert E. Shostak, and Marshall C. Pease. 1982. The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (1982).
[29]
Libra Team. 2019. State Machine Replication in the LibraBlockchain . Version 2019--10--24.
[30]
Kartik Nayak, Ling Ren, Elaine Shi, Nitin H. Vaidya, and Zhuolun Xiang. 2020. Improved Extension Protocols for Byzantine Broadcast and Agreement. In DISC (LIPIcs, Vol. 179). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fü r Informatik, 28:1--28:17.
[31]
Matthieu Rambaud. 2020. Malicious Security Comes for Free in Consensus with Leaders. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/1480. version 2020--11--29 https://eprint.iacr.org/eprint-bin/getfile.pl?entry=2020/1480&version=20201129:224740&file=1480.pdf.
[32]
Victor Shoup. 2000. Practical Threshold Signatures. In EUROCRYPT (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1807). Springer, 207--220.
[33]
Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K. Reiter, Guy Golan-Gueta, and Ittai Abraham. 2019. HotStuff: BFT Consensus with Linearity and Responsiveness. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2019, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 29 - August 2, 2019. ACM, 347--356.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)LiDO: Linearizable Byzantine Distributed Objects with Refinement-Based Liveness ProofsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564238:PLDI(1140-1164)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
  • (2024)BG: A Modular Treatment of BFT Consensus Toward a Unified Theory of BFT ReplicationIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2023.331894319(44-58)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
PODC'21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
July 2021
590 pages
ISBN:9781450385480
DOI:10.1145/3465084
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 July 2021

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bft
  2. consensus
  3. state machine replication
  4. succinct proofs

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract

Funding Sources

Conference

PODC '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)LiDO: Linearizable Byzantine Distributed Objects with Refinement-Based Liveness ProofsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564238:PLDI(1140-1164)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
  • (2024)BG: A Modular Treatment of BFT Consensus Toward a Unified Theory of BFT ReplicationIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2023.331894319(44-58)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media