the contest between simplicity and efficiency in asynchronous byzantine agreement

24
The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement Allison Lewko The University of Texas at Austin

Upload: kyna

Post on 22-Feb-2016

51 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement. Allison Lewko. The University of Texas at Austin. TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A. Byzantine Agreement. n parties each has an input bit - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Allison Lewko

The University of Texas at Austin

Page 2: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Byzantine Agreement• n parties• each has an input bit• t corrupt parties

Goal: agree on a bit equal to input of some ``good” party

0 0 0 0 0

1

Page 3: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Byzantine Agreement• Simple problem, worst case adversary

Page 4: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

HistoryImpossibility Constraints:

• >= 1/3 corrupted processors• deterministic algorithm, 1 crash failure [FLP]

Algorithms:

• termination with prob =1• adaptive adversary• exponential expected running time

[Ben-Or, Bracha]

[KKKSS]• termination/correctness with prob 1 – o(1)• non-adaptive adversary• polylogarithmic running time

Page 5: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Landscape of possible algorithms?

[Ben-Or, Bracha]

[KKKSS]

???

LLas Vegas polytime algorithm?

LAdaptive adversary polytime algorithm?

Page 6: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Our Result

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚

𝑒[Ben-Or, Bracha]

Page 7: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Simple Algorithm Recipe

One Round:

bit b

broadcast b

validate set of responses = S

Compute b’ = N(S)b’

Repeat

Randomized function

Page 8: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Ben-Or, Bracha AlgorithmsS = Set of bits

• overwhelming majority

• strong majority

• mixed

Decide

Fix b’ to majority

Define b’ randomly

N = b

Page 9: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Why Exponential Time?

Decide 0 Fix 0 Random Decide 1Fix 1

S: mostly 0 . . . . . . . . mixed . . . . . . . . . mostly 1

N := number of processorsN := number of participantsT = eg= t

𝑛 :𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡=Ω (𝑛) :𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠

± O(

Exponential Loop!

Page 10: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Generalizing the Algorithm Recipe

t = gg= tx = yg= x

Round i:

bit b

broadcast b

validate set of responses = S

Compute b’ = N(S)

Randomized function

value v

broadcast v

i

S1 , S2 , …, Si

Compute v’ = N(S1, S2, … ,Si )

Randomized function with constant size range

Page 11: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Key Restrictions

• S1, . . . , Si are considered as sets

• N(S1 , . . . , Si) chooses randomly from a constant number of possible values

- messages divorced from senders

- values themselves can vary

Page 12: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

How to Prove Exponential Time?Classic strategy:

Executiondeciding 0

Executiondeciding 1Indistinguishable

to some uncorruptedprocessor

Chain of executions, each execution of exponential length

Not deciding!

Page 13: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Challenge for Randomized Algorithms

Any single execution may be unlikely

Takes a class of executions to add up to constant probability

Page 14: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Execution ClassesDivide processors into groups

S

S

SClass defined by sets pergroup per round

Page 15: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Source of Adversary’s ControlSuppose Ω(n) processors receive the same sets:

S1, S2, . . . , Si S1, S2, . . . , Si S1, S2, . . . , Si

. . . N(S1 , . . . , Si) N(S1 , . . . , Si) N(S1 , . . . , Si). . .

Independent samples from same distribution

Page 16: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Chernoff Bound

D - a distribution on R valuesR - a constant

X 1; : : : ;X k - independent samples from D

\ k balls in R bins":

. . . p1 p2 p3 pR

bin i \ far" from pik with probabability exponentially small in k

Page 17: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Adversary Can Match Expectations

S1, S2, . . . , Si

Output = Expectation [N(S1, … , Si)]

Page 18: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Chain of Execution Classes• Each group kept in sync• Output sets match expectations

Execution classdeciding 0

Execution classdeciding 1

Execution class

Execution class…

Indistinguishableto some group One of these must

be non-deciding

Page 19: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Generating the Chain of Execution ClassesE rounds

0

0

0

1

1

1

Change group inputs onegroup at a time:

Page 20: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Adversary Strategy

• adversary divides processors into groups of t

• corrupts constant fraction per group

• all group members see same message sets

• tries to stay in the non-deciding execution class

Page 21: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Adversary’s Success ProbabilityS1, S2, … , Si Z1, Z2, … , Zi

V1, V2, …,Vi

Output = ExpectationWith Prob = 1 – 1/exp

Output = ExpectationWith Prob = 1 – 1/exp

Output = ExpectationWith Prob = 1 – 1/exp

By Union bound over groups and rounds, # of rounds = Exp with constant probability

Page 22: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Observations

• Adversary Strategy :

- Only leverages message schedulingand random coins of bad processors- No hope to detect bad behavior without risk

• Impossibility proof crucially leverages:

- Received messages treated as sets- Random Variables have bounded support

Page 23: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Open Problems

[KKKSS]

???

LLas Vegas polytime algorithm?

LAdaptive adversary polytime algorithm?

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑇𝑖𝑚

𝑒

• Still simple structure, unbounded randomness?• Weaken symmetry in processing received messages?

[Ben-Or, Bracha]

Page 24: The Contest between Simplicity and Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

Thank you!

Questions?