pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07010 · v1 · pith:RYF2KP7Rnew · submitted 2019-07-16 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.CR· cs.NI

Threshold Logical Clocks for Asynchronous Distributed Coordination and Consensus

Bryan Ford This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 20:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.CRcs.NI
keywords asynchronous consensuslogical clocksdistributed coordinationfault-tolerant protocolsthreshold mechanismsPaxos alternatives
0
0 comments X

The pith

Threshold logical clocks let asynchronous networks support synchronous-style consensus protocols.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces threshold logical clocks as a way to coordinate time in asynchronous distributed systems. This abstraction allows higher-level protocols to assume a synchronous network even when the underlying communication is asynchronous. If successful, it promises to simplify the design of consensus algorithms, making them more robust than leader-based approaches like Paxos while avoiding the need for common coins. The result is a protocol that reaches consensus in a constant expected number of rounds for fail-stop failures. The same foundation extends to Byzantine settings using established cryptographic techniques.

Core claim

By defining logical time through threshold agreement on clock ticks rather than real-time or leader decisions, the approach decouples upper-layer coordination from the challenges of asynchrony, enabling a modular consensus protocol that operates with constant expected rounds without common coins.

What carries the argument

The threshold logical clock, an abstraction where time advances when a sufficient threshold of nodes agree on the next logical tick.

If this is right

  • The consensus protocol requires no common coins.
  • Consensus is achieved in a constant expected number of rounds.
  • The protocol may be simpler and more robust than Paxos for fail-stop nodes.
  • It supports extension to Byzantine failures via tamper-evident logs and threshold signatures.
  • It provides a layered approach for building services like randomness beacons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This could make implementing reliable distributed systems more accessible by reducing protocol complexity.
  • Similar abstractions might apply to other asynchronous coordination tasks like leader election or mutual exclusion.
  • Practical deployments could test the constant-round property under real network delays.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold of nodes can reliably agree on logical clock ticks despite arbitrary message delays and failures.

What would settle it

A demonstration that no threshold-based tick agreement can be maintained in a fully asynchronous network with even one faulty node.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07010 by Bryan Ford.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of basic threshold logical clocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of one witnessed TLC time-step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Global time periods demarked by the moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates three nodes building three indepen￾dent blockchains in this way. The real (wall-clock) time at which each node reaches a given TLC time-step and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of Strawman 1, in which each of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of Strawman 2, in which each node’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of Strawman 4, in which knowledge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of Strawman 5, in which paparazzi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Global time periods demarked by the moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustration of basic threshold logical clocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of one witnessed TLC time-step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Layered architecture for threshold logical time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Consensus protocols for asynchronous networks are usually complex and inefficient, leading practical systems to rely on synchronous protocols. This paper attempts to simplify asynchronous consensus by building atop a novel threshold logical clock abstraction, which enables upper layers to operate as if on a synchronous network. This approach yields an asynchronous consensus protocol for fail-stop nodes that may be simpler and more robust than Paxos and its leader-based variants, requiring no common coins and achieving consensus in a constant expected number of rounds. The same approach can be strengthened against Byzantine failures by building on well-established techniques such as tamper-evident logging and gossip, accountable state machines, threshold signatures and witness cosigning, and verifiable secret sharing. This combination of existing abstractions and threshold logical clocks yields a modular, cleanly-layered approach to building practical and efficient Byzantine consensus, distributed key generation, time, timestamping, and randomness beacons, and other critical services.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a threshold logical clock abstraction that lets upper-layer protocols operate as if the underlying asynchronous fail-stop network were synchronous. This is used to derive a consensus protocol claimed to be simpler and more robust than Paxos variants, requiring no common coins and terminating in a constant expected number of rounds; the same layering is then extended to Byzantine faults via tamper-evident logs, threshold signatures, and related primitives.

Significance. If the threshold logical clock construction is shown to deliver the synchronous abstraction without reintroducing leader election, timing bounds, or shared randomness, the result would supply a genuinely modular foundation for consensus and related services, reducing the complexity of asynchronous protocols while preserving their fault-tolerance guarantees.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (definition and implementation of the threshold logical clock): the central claim that upper layers may treat the system as synchronous rests on this construction; the manuscript must explicitly demonstrate that clock advancement requires neither implicit timing assumptions nor any form of leader election or common coins, otherwise the reduction to a synchronous protocol and the complexity comparison to Paxos both fail.
  2. [§4] §4 (fail-stop consensus protocol): the stated constant expected round complexity is derived from the logical clock; the analysis must quantify the expected number of clock ticks per round under fully asynchronous scheduling and show that it remains constant, independent of network delays.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for threshold parameters (e.g., t and n) is introduced without a consolidated table; adding one would improve readability across sections.
  2. [§5] The Byzantine extension in §5 cites several existing techniques but does not include a single diagram showing the layering; a figure would clarify the modular boundaries.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and plan to incorporate revisions to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (definition and implementation of the threshold logical clock): the central claim that upper layers may treat the system as synchronous rests on this construction; the manuscript must explicitly demonstrate that clock advancement requires neither implicit timing assumptions nor any form of leader election or common coins, otherwise the reduction to a synchronous protocol and the complexity comparison to Paxos both fail.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration is important for the central claim. In the current manuscript, Section 3 defines the threshold logical clock using only asynchronous message exchanges and threshold-based quorums without relying on timing, leaders, or shared randomness. To make this clearer, we will revise the section to include a dedicated proof or argument explicitly ruling out these assumptions. This will support the reduction to synchronous protocols and the comparison to Paxos. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (fail-stop consensus protocol): the stated constant expected round complexity is derived from the logical clock; the analysis must quantify the expected number of clock ticks per round under fully asynchronous scheduling and show that it remains constant, independent of network delays.

    Authors: The manuscript claims constant expected rounds based on the logical clock abstraction. However, we acknowledge that a more detailed quantification of the expected clock ticks per round under arbitrary asynchronous scheduling is required to fully substantiate the claim. We will add this analysis in the revised manuscript, deriving that the expectation is constant and independent of delays due to the threshold mechanism ensuring progress with high probability in each logical step. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: novel abstraction defined independently of target consensus properties

full rationale

The paper introduces a new threshold logical clock abstraction whose definition and properties are presented as the foundation for the consensus protocol. The abstract and description frame the work as building atop this novel construct rather than deriving the abstraction from fitted parameters, prior self-citations, or equations that reduce the claimed synchronous behavior to its own inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps in the provided text exhibit self-definitional reduction, fitted-input prediction, or self-citation chains that force the result. The derivation is therefore self-contained as a definitional proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the new threshold logical clock abstraction, which is postulated without implementation details or proofs in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Upper layers can operate as if on a synchronous network using the threshold logical clock abstraction
    This is the core premise stated in the abstract for building the consensus protocol.
invented entities (1)
  • threshold logical clock no independent evidence
    purpose: To abstract asynchronous networks into synchronous-like behavior for upper layers
    New concept introduced to enable the described protocols.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5669 in / 1222 out tokens · 25292 ms · 2026-05-24T20:37:50.258812+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

168 extracted references · 168 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dfinity Consensus, Explored

    Ittai Abraham, Dahlia Malkhi, Kartik Nayak, and Ling Ren. Dfinity Consensus, Explored. Cryptol- ogy ePrint Archive, Report 2018/1153, November 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Validated Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience and Asymptotically Optimal Time and Word Communication

    Ittai Abraham, Dahlia Malkhi, and Alexander Spiegelman. V alidated Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience and Asymp- totically Optimal Time and Word Communication. CoRR, abs/1811.01332, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Asymptotically Optimal V alidated Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement

    Ittai Abraham, Dahlia Malkhi, and Alexander Spiegelman. Asymptotically Optimal V alidated Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Comput- ing (PODC), July 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Adams, P

    C. Adams, P . Cain, D. Pinkas, and R. Zuccherato. Internet x.509 public key infrastructure time-stamp protocol (tsp), August 2001. RFC 3161

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    ANSI X9.95-2016: Trusted Time Stamp Management And Security, December 2016

    American National Standards Institute. ANSI X9.95-2016: Trusted Time Stamp Management And Security, December 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Prime: Byzantine replication under at- tack

    Y air Amir, Brian Coan, Jonathan Kirsch, and John Lane. Prime: Byzantine replication under at- tack. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Se- cure Computing, 8(4):564–577, July 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Hijacking Bitcoin: Large-scale Network At- tacks on Cryptocurrencies

    Maria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, and Laurent V an- bever. Hijacking Bitcoin: Large-scale Network At- tacks on Cryptocurrencies. 38th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , May 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Randomized protocols for asyn- chronous consensus

    James Aspnes. Randomized protocols for asyn- chronous consensus. Distributed Computing , 16(2–3):165–175, September 2003

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    Faster randomized consensus with an oblivious adversary

    James Aspnes. Faster randomized consensus with an oblivious adversary. Distributed Computing , 28(1):21–29, February 2015

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    The next 700 BFT protocols

    Pierre-Louis Aublin, Rachid Guerraoui, Nikola Kneˇ zevi´ c, Vivien Qu´ ema, and Marko Vukoli´ c. The next 700 BFT protocols. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 32(4):12:1–12:45, January 2015. 37

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Y onatan Aumann and Michael A. Bender. Efficient Asynchronous Consensus with the V alue-Oblivi- ous Adversary Scheduler. In 23rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Pro- gramming (ICALP), July 1996

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

    Y onatan Aumann and Michael A. Bender. Efficient low-contention asynchronous consensus with the value-oblivious adversary scheduler. Distributed Computing, 17(3):191–207, March 2005

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Complexity of Network Syn- chronization

    Baruch A werbuch. Complexity of Network Syn- chronization. Journal of the Association for Com- puting Machinery, 32(4):804–823, October 1985

    work page 1985

  14. [14]

    Identity-Based Threshold Decryption

    Joonsang Baek and Y uliang Zheng. Identity-Based Threshold Decryption. In 7th International W ork- shop on Theory and Practice in Public Key Cryp- tography (PKC), March 2004

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    Multisignatures secure under the discrete logarithm assumption and a generalized forking lemma

    Ali Bagherzandi, Jung Hee Cheon, and Stanisław Jarecki. Multisignatures secure under the discrete logarithm assumption and a generalized forking lemma. In 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) , October 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Hashgraph Consensus: fair, fast, Byzantine fault tolerance

    Leemon Baird. Hashgraph Consensus: fair, fast, Byzantine fault tolerance. Technical Report TR- 2016-01, Swirlds, May 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Almost-Surely Terminating Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement Revisited

    Laasya Bangalore, Ashish Choudhury, and Arpita Patra. Almost-Surely Terminating Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement Revisited. In Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) , pages 295–304, July 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols

    Michael Ben-Or. Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) , Au- gust 1983

    work page 1983

  19. [19]

    Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement (Extended Abstract)

    Michael Ben-Or. Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement (Extended Abstract). In 4th Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) , pages 149– 151, August 1985

    work page 1985

  20. [20]

    Alchieri

    Alysson Bessani, Joao Sousa, and Eduardo E.P . Alchieri. State machine replication for the masses with BFT-SMART. In International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN) , pages 355–362, June 2014

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Secure Multiparty Computation Goes Live

    Peter Bogetoft, Dan Lund Christensen, Ivan Dam˚ gard, Martin Geisler, Thomas Jakobsen, Mikkel Krøigaard, Janus Dam Nielsen, Jes- per Buus Nielsen, Kurt Nielsen, Jakob Pagter, Michael Schwartzbach, and Tomas Toft. Secure Multiparty Computation Goes Live. In 13th In- ternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) , February 2009

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Deconstructing Paxos

    Romain Boichat, Partha Dutta, Svend Frlund, and Rachid Guerraoui. Deconstructing Paxos. ACM SIGACT News, 34(1), March 2003

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Threshold Signatures, Mul- tisignatures and Blind Signatures Based on the Gap-Diffie-Hellman-Group Signature Scheme

    Alexandra Boldyreva. Threshold Signatures, Mul- tisignatures and Blind Signatures Based on the Gap-Diffie-Hellman-Group Signature Scheme. In 6th International W orkshop on Practice and The- ory in Public Key Cryptography (PKC) , January 2003

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    V erifiable delay functions

    Dan Boneh, Joseph Bonneau, Benedikt B¨ unz, and Ben Fisch. V erifiable delay functions. In 38th Ad- vances in Cryptology (CRYPTO) , August 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Compact Multi-Signatures for Smaller Blockchains

    Dan Boneh, Manu Drijvers, and Gregory Neven. Compact Multi-Signatures for Smaller Blockchains. In Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2018, December 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Identity-based en- cryption from the Weil pairing

    Dan Boneh and Matt Franklin. Identity-based en- cryption from the Weil pairing. In 21st IACR Inter- national Cryptology Conference (CRYPTO). 2001

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    On Bitcoin as a public randomness source

    Joseph Bonneau, Jeremy Clark, and Steven Goldfeder. On Bitcoin as a public randomness source. IACR eprint archive, October 2015

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    An asynchronous [(n-1)/3]-Resilient Consensus Protocol

    Gabriel Bracha. An asynchronous [(n-1)/3]-Resilient Consensus Protocol. In 3rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) , pages 154–162, August 1984

    work page 1984

  29. [29]

    Asynchronous Consensus and Broadcast Protocols

    Gabriel Bracha and Sam Toueg. Asynchronous Consensus and Broadcast Protocols. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (JACM), 32(4):824–840, October 1985. 38

    work page 1985

  30. [30]

    Above Us Only Stars: Exposing GPS Spoofing in Russia and Syria, April 2019

    C4ADS. Above Us Only Stars: Exposing GPS Spoofing in Russia and Syria, April 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Asynchronous V erifiable Secret Sharing and Proactive Cryptosystems

    Christian Cachin, Klaus Kursawe, Anna Lysyan- skaya, and Reto Strobl. Asynchronous V erifiable Secret Sharing and Proactive Cryptosystems. In 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communi- cations Security (CCS) , November 2002

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    Secure and Efficient Asyn- chronous Broadcast Protocols

    Christian Cachin, Klaus Kursawe, Frank Petzold, and Victor Shoup. Secure and Efficient Asyn- chronous Broadcast Protocols. In Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO), August 2001

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    Random oracles in constantinople: Practi- cal asynchronous byzantine agreement using cryp- tography

    Christian Cachin, Klaus Kursawe, and Victor Shoup. Random oracles in constantinople: Practi- cal asynchronous byzantine agreement using cryp- tography. Journal of Cryptology , 18(3):219–246, 2005

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    Introduction to Reliable and Secure Dis- tributed Programming

    Christian Cachin and Rachid Guerraoui Lu´ ıs Ro- drigues. Introduction to Reliable and Secure Dis- tributed Programming. Springer, February 2011

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Calandrino, J

    Joseph A. Calandrino, J. Alex Halderman, and Ed- ward W . Felten. Machine-Assisted Election Au- diting. In USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic V oting T echnology W orkshop (ETV), August 2007

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience

    Ran Canetti and Tal Rabin. Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience. In 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 42–51, May 1993

    work page 1993

  37. [37]

    Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience, September 1998

    Ran Canetti and Tal Rabin. Fast Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement with Optimal Resilience, September 1998

    work page 1998

  38. [38]

    SCRAPE: Scalable Randomness Attested by Public Entities

    Ignacio Cascudo and Bernardo David. SCRAPE: Scalable Randomness Attested by Public Entities. In 15th International Conference on Applied Cryp- tography and Network Security (ACNS), July 2017

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance

    Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. In 3rd USENIX Sym- posium on Operating Systems Design and Imple- mentation (OSDI), February 1999

    work page 1999

  40. [40]

    V erifiable Secret Sharing and Achieving Simultaneity in the Presence of Faults

    Benny Chor, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, and Baruch A werbuch. V erifiable Secret Sharing and Achieving Simultaneity in the Presence of Faults. In 26th Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science (SFCS), October 1985

    work page 1985

  41. [41]

    D. D. Clark and D. L. Tennenhouse. Architectural considerations for a new generation of protocols. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 200–208, 1990

    work page 1990

  42. [42]

    On the Use of Financial Data as a Random Beacon

    Jeremy Clark and Urs Hengartner. On the Use of Financial Data as a Random Beacon. In Electronic V oting T echnology W orkshop/W orkshop on Trust- worthy Elections (EVT/WOTE), August 2010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    UpRight cluster services

    Allen Clement, Manos Kapritsos, Sangmin Lee, Y ang Wang, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, and Taylor Rich´ e. UpRight cluster services. In ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), October 2009

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Making Byzantine Fault Tolerant Systems Tolerate Byzan- tine Faults

    Allen Clement, Edmund L Wong, Lorenzo Alvisi, Michael Dahlin, and Mirco Marchetti. Making Byzantine Fault Tolerant Systems Tolerate Byzan- tine Faults. In 6th USENIX Symposium on Net- worked Systems Design and Implementation , April 2009

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    Programmers solve MITs 20-year-old cryptographic puzzle, April 2019

    Adam Conner-Simons. Programmers solve MITs 20-year-old cryptographic puzzle, April 2019

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    From consensus to atomic broadcast: Time-free Byzantine-resistant protocols without signatures

    Miguel Correia, Nuno Ferreira Neves, and Paulo V erssimo. From consensus to atomic broadcast: Time-free Byzantine-resistant protocols without signatures. The Computer Journal , 49(1), January 2006

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Byzantine consensus in asynchronous message- passing systems: a survey

    Miguel Correia, Giuliana Santos V eronese, Nuno Ferreira Neves, and Paulo V erissimo. Byzantine consensus in asynchronous message- passing systems: a survey. International Journal of Critical Computer-Based Systems , 2(2):141–161, July 2011

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    General Secure Multi-party Computation from any Linear Secret-Sharing Scheme

    Ronald Cramer, Ivan Dam˚ gard, and Ueli Maurer. General Secure Multi-party Computation from any Linear Secret-Sharing Scheme. In Eurocrypt, May 2000. 39

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    Crosby and Dan S

    Scott A. Crosby and Dan S. Wallach. Efficient data structures for tamper-evident logging. In USENIX Security Symposium, August 2009

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

    On Blockchain Frontrunning, Febru- ary 2018

    Matt Czernik. On Blockchain Frontrunning, Febru- ary 2018

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    Peter H. Dana. Global Positioning System (GPS) Time Dissemination for Real-Time Applications. Real Time Systems, 12(1):9–40, January 1997

    work page 1997

  52. [52]

    Blockmania: from Block DAGs to Consensus

    George Danezis and David Hrycyszyn. Blockma- nia: from block dags to consensus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01620, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Counting Lines of Code

    Al Danial. Counting Lines of Code. http:// cloc.sourceforge.net/

    work page

  54. [54]

    Davis, Daniel E

    Donald T. Davis, Daniel E. Geer, and Theodore Ts’o. Kerberos With Clocks Adrift: History, Pro- tocols, and Implementation. Computing systems , 9(1):29–46, 1996

    work page 1996

  55. [55]

    Epidemic algorithms for repli- cated database maintenance

    Alan Demers et al. Epidemic algorithms for repli- cated database maintenance. In 6th ACM Sym- posium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 1–12, 1987

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    Threshold cryp- tosystems

    Yvo Desmedt and Y air Frankel. Threshold cryp- tosystems. In Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO) , August 1989

    work page 1989

  57. [57]

    The Political Potential of Sorti- tion: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office

    Oliver Dowlen. The Political Potential of Sorti- tion: A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office. Imprint Academic, August 2008

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    On the security of two-round multi- signatures

    Manu Drijvers, Kasra Edalatnejad, Bryan Ford, Eike Kiltz, Julian Loss, Gregory Neven, and Igors Stepanovs. On the security of two-round multi- signatures. In 40th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , May 2019

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    L´ ucia M. A. Drummond and V almir C. Barbosa. On reducing the complexity of matrix clocks. Par- allel Computing, 29(7):895–905, July 2003

    work page 2003

  60. [60]

    Reiter, and Haibin Zhang

    Sisi Duan, Michael K. Reiter, and Haibin Zhang. BEA T: Asynchronous BFT Made Practical. In Computer and Communications Security (CCS) , October 2018

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Transparent Dishonesty: front-run- ning attacks on Blockchain

    Shayan Eskandari, Seyedehmahsa Moosavi, and Jeremy Clark. Transparent Dishonesty: front-run- ning attacks on Blockchain. In 3rd W orkshop on Trusted Smart Contracts (WTSC), February 2019

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Optimal Algo- rithms for Byzantine Agreement

    Paul Feldman and Silvio Micali. Optimal Algo- rithms for Byzantine Agreement. In 20th Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 148– 161, May 1988

    work page 1988

  63. [63]

    Logical time in distributed comput- ing systems

    Colin Fidge. Logical time in distributed comput- ing systems. IEEE Computer, 24(8):28–33, August 1991

    work page 1991

  64. [64]

    Fienberg

    Stephen E. Fienberg. Randomization and So- cial Affairs: The 1970 Draft Lottery. Science, 171(3968):255–261, January 1971

    work page 1970

  65. [65]

    Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process

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

    work page 1985

  66. [66]

    Fischer and Alan Michael

    Michael J. Fischer and Alan Michael. Sacrificing serializability to attain high availability of data in an unreliable network. In Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS) , pages 70–75, March 1982

    work page 1982

  67. [67]

    Experiment- ing with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion

    James S Fishkin and Robert C Luskin. Experiment- ing with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3):284298, September 2005

    work page 2005

  68. [68]

    Apple, FBI, and Software Trans- parency

    Bryan Ford. Apple, FBI, and Software Trans- parency. Freedom to Tinker, March 2016

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    The Man Who Cracked the Lottery

    Reid Forgrave. The Man Who Cracked the Lottery. The New Y ork Times Magazine, May 2018

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    Simple and efficient oracle-based con- sensus protocols for asynchronous Byzantine sys- tems

    Roy Friedman, Achour Mostefaoui, and Michel Raynal. Simple and efficient oracle-based con- sensus protocols for asynchronous Byzantine sys- tems. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Se- cure Computing, 2(1), January 2005

    work page 2005

  71. [71]

    Srivastava

    Saurabh Ganeriwal, Christina P¨ opper, Srdjan ˇCapkun, and Mani B. Srivastava. Secure Time 40 Synchronization in Sensor Networks. ACM Trans- actions on Information and System Security (TIS- SEC), 11(4), July 2008

    work page 2008

  72. [72]

    V anish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-Destructing Data

    Roxana Geambasu, Tadayoshi Kohno, Amit A Levy, and Henry M Levy. V anish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-Destructing Data. In USENIX Se- curity Symposium, pages 299–316, 2009

    work page 2009

  73. [73]

    Secure Distributed Key Generation for Discrete-Log Based Cryptosys- tems

    Rosario Gennaro, Stanisław Jarecki, Hugo Krawczyk, and Tal Rabin. Secure Distributed Key Generation for Discrete-Log Based Cryptosys- tems. 20(1):51–83, January 2007

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    Rabin, and Tal Rabin

    Rosario Gennaro, Michael O. Rabin, and Tal Rabin. Simplified VSS and Fast-track Multi- party Computations with Applications to Thresh- old Cryptography. In 17th Principles of Dis- tributed Computing (PODC), June 1998

    work page 1998

  75. [75]

    On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains

    Arthur Gervais, Ghassan O Karame, Karl W¨ ust, V asileios Glykantzis, Hubert Ritzdorf, and Srdjan ˇCapkun. On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains. October 2016

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    Algorand: Scal- ing Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies, October 2017

    Y ossi Gilad, Rotem Hemo, Silvio Micali, Georgios Vlachos, and Nickolai Zeldovich. Algorand: Scal- ing Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies, October 2017

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    The Go Programming Language, February 2018

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    Accountable Virtual Machines

    Andreas Haeberlen, Paarijaat Aditya, Rodrigo Ro- drigues, and Peter Druschel. Accountable Virtual Machines. In 9th USENIX Symposium on Oper- ating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI) , October 2010

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems

    Andreas Haeberlen, Petr Kouznetsov, and Peter Dr- uschel. PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems. In 21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP) , October 2007

    work page 2007

  80. [80]

    DFINITY Technology Overview Series: Consensus System, May 2018

    Timo Hanke, Mahnush Movahedi, and Dominic Williams. DFINITY Technology Overview Series: Consensus System, May 2018

    work page 2018

Showing first 80 references.