, , , ,
In protocols with asymmetric trust, participants are free to make individual trust assumptions about others, as captured by an asymmetric quorum system. This differs from symmetric quorum systems and threshold models where all participants share the same trust assumption. While reliable broadcasts, shared-memory emulations, and binary consensus have been achieved with asymmetric quorums, this work introduces Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)-based consensus protocols with asymmetric trust. To achieve this, the key building blocks of the DAG-Rider protocol have been extended to the asymmetric model. Surprisingly, replacing threshold quorums with their asymmetric counterparts in the existing constant-round gather protocol did not result in a sound asymmetric gather primitive. This highlights the need for new ideas in designing asymmetric DAG-based consensus protocols that rely on common-core primitives. As a response to this challenge, the first asymmetric protocol for computing a common core equivalent to that in the threshold model has been introduced. This breakthrough leads to the development of the first randomized asynchronous DAG-based consensus protocol with asymmetric quorums. This protocol is capable of deciding within an expected constant number of rounds after an input has been submitted, where the specific constant depends on the chosen quorum system. Additionally, Appendix A provides a mechanical proof demonstrating the impossibility of extending the usual gather protocol to accommodate asymmetric quorums. The model considered involves a system of processes interacting asynchronously through message exchanges, where correct processes adhere to their protocols while faulty or Byzantine processes may crash or deviate arbitrarily from their specifications. Overall, this research significantly advances our understanding and capabilities in developing consensus protocols with asymmetric trust models within Directed Acyclic Graph structures.
- - In protocols with asymmetric trust, participants can make individual trust assumptions about others
- - Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)-based consensus protocols with asymmetric trust have been introduced
- - The DAG-Rider protocol building blocks have been extended to the asymmetric model
- - The first randomized asynchronous DAG-based consensus protocol with asymmetric quorums has been developed
- - This research advances understanding and capabilities in developing consensus protocols within Directed Acyclic Graph structures
Summary- In some rules where trust is not equal, people can decide how much they trust others.
- New ways of agreeing on things using a special kind of chart called Directed Acyclic Graph have been made.
- The building blocks for one particular chart system, DAG-Rider, have been improved for when trust levels are different.
- A new way to agree on things using random timing and the chart system has been created.
- This work helps us get better at making agreements using certain types of charts.
Definitions1. Protocols: Rules or systems that guide how things should be done.
2. Asymmetric: Not equal or balanced; different on each side.
3. Trust: Believing in someone's honesty or reliability.
4. Consensus: Reaching an agreement among a group of people.
5. Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG): A type of chart where information flows in one direction without forming loops.
Introduction:
In the world of distributed systems, achieving consensus among multiple participants is a critical challenge. Consensus protocols are used to ensure that all nodes in a network agree on the same value or decision, even in the presence of faulty or malicious nodes. However, traditional consensus protocols assume symmetric trust models where all participants share the same level of trust. In contrast, asymmetric trust models allow for individual trust assumptions about others.
A recent research paper titled "Directed Acyclic Graph-Based Consensus Protocols with Asymmetric Trust" introduces new advancements in developing consensus protocols with asymmetric trust within Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structures. This breakthrough has significant implications for ensuring secure and reliable communication among distributed systems.
Background:
The paper begins by discussing existing protocols that have successfully achieved reliable broadcasts, shared-memory emulations, and binary consensus using asymmetric quorum systems. These systems allow for different levels of trust assumptions between participants and have been proven to be effective in certain scenarios.
However, the authors note that there is still a need for new ideas in designing DAG-based consensus protocols that rely on common-core primitives. To address this gap, they introduce an extension to the key building blocks of the DAG-Rider protocol to accommodate asymmetric trust models.
Results:
One of the main contributions of this research is the development of a randomized asynchronous DAG-based consensus protocol with asymmetric quorums. This protocol can decide within an expected constant number of rounds after an input has been submitted, depending on the chosen quorum system.
Additionally, Appendix A provides a mechanical proof demonstrating why it is impossible to extend traditional gather protocols to accommodate asymmetric quorums. This highlights the significance and novelty of this research as it addresses challenges previously thought to be unsolvable.
Methodology:
The model considered in this research involves processes interacting asynchronously through message exchanges. Correct processes adhere to their designated protocols while faulty or Byzantine processes may crash or deviate arbitrarily from their specifications.
To achieve their results, the authors first extend the key building blocks of the DAG-Rider protocol to accommodate asymmetric trust models. They then introduce a new common-core primitive for asymmetric quorums, which serves as the foundation for their randomized asynchronous consensus protocol.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, this research paper makes significant contributions to our understanding and capabilities in developing consensus protocols with asymmetric trust models within Directed Acyclic Graph structures. By extending existing protocols and introducing new primitives, the authors have successfully addressed challenges in achieving reliable communication among distributed systems with varying levels of trust assumptions.
The implications of this research are far-reaching, as it opens up possibilities for more secure and efficient communication among participants with different levels of trust. Future work in this area could further explore how these advancements can be applied to real-world scenarios and potentially lead to even more robust consensus protocols.
Overall, "Directed Acyclic Graph-Based Consensus Protocols with Asymmetric Trust" is a valuable addition to the field of distributed systems and has laid a solid foundation for future research in this area. It highlights the importance of considering asymmetric trust models when designing consensus protocols and provides practical solutions that can be implemented in various settings.