The fault-tolerant cluster-sending problem

Jelle Hellings; Mohammad Sadoghi

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

The fault-tolerant cluster-sending problem

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper formalizes cluster-sending, proves linear lower bounds for it, and gives protocols that meet them.

desk verdict A solid formalization of a useful cluster-sending primitive with mostly sound lower bounds and matching protocols; the crash lower bound misses one case, but it is easily patched. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01455 v1 pith:EWD4KFGE submitted 2019-08-05 cs.DC

Jelle Hellings , Mohammad Sadoghi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DC

keywords fault-tolerantdistributedsystemsByzantinefailurescrashcluster-sendingproblembijectivesendingcommunicationcomplexityreplicasigningcluster

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper formalizes the cluster-sending problem: sending a value from one Byzantine cluster of replicas to another so that every non-faulty replica in the destination receives it, no non-faulty destination replica accepts a value the source never agreed on, and the source can confirm delivery. The main result is a pair of lower bounds — at least $\sigma_i$ messages under crash failures (Theorem 4.1) and at least $\tau_i$ certificates under Byzantine failures with replica signing (Theorem 4.2) — both linear in the cluster sizes. The paper then constructs protocols (BS, SPBS, RPBS) based on bijective sending that match these bounds, so cross-cluster communication need not pay quadratic broadcast costs. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies a foundational primitive for sharded geo-scale Byzantine systems, where clusters must cooperate without all replicas talking to all replicas.

What carries the argument

Bijective sending is the load-bearing mechanism: choose equal-sized subsets $S_1 \subseteq C_1$ and $S_2 \subseteq C_2$, fix a bijection between them, and have each selected sender send the agreed value to its matched receiver. Because the sets are large enough that at least one non-faulty sender is paired with a non-faulty receiver, that receiver broadcasts the value inside $C_2$, giving receipt and confirmation. Partitioned bijective sending generalizes this to unequal clusters by cutting the larger cluster into $c$-partitions and running independent bijections for enough partitions; the lower-bound proofs use counting arguments over worst-case faulty senders and receivers. The identity that carries the argument is the relation between the required number of non-faulty sender-receiver pairs ($f_{C_2}+1$ for cluster signing, $f_{C_1}+1$ for replica signing) and the chosen subset sizes.

What would settle it

Run the worst-case crash pattern behind Theorem 4.1 for concrete small clusters, e.g. $n_{C_1}=3$, $f_{C_1}=1$, $n_{C_2}=2$, $f_{C_2}=0$; the claimed bound is $\sigma_1=2$ messages. A protocol that reliably delivers the value with a single message in that configuration would refute the lower bound, so systematically searching all one-message sender-receiver choices under that crash pattern is a direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cost of reliably sending a message between two Byzantine clusters is fundamentally linear, not quadratic. Under crash failures, any correct protocol must exchange at least $\sigma_i$ messages, where $\sigma_i$ counts the smallest number of sender-receiver pairs that survive the worst crash pattern; under Byzantine failures with replica signing, any correct protocol must exchange at least $\tau_i$ certificates signed by distinct sender replicas. These bounds hold for asynchronous reliable communication and do not depend on delivery timing. The paper further claims that the bijective-sending protocols BS-bcs, BS-brs, and the partitioned variants SPBS and RPBS attain these bounds under the stated resilience conditions ($n_C > 3f_C$ with cluster signing or crash/omission failures, $n_C > 4f_C$ with replica signing), giving optimal communication complexity.

Load-bearing premise

The protocols assume replicas inside a cluster can reach agreement with an off-the-shelf consensus protocol and that messages sent by non-faulty replicas eventually arrive; if intra-cluster consensus is unavailable or the network can drop messages indefinitely, the correctness proofs and linear lower bounds no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

No cluster-sending protocol can beat roughly $\max(n_{C_1}, n_{C_2})$ messages or certificates, so the linear floor is now a design target.
Sharded Byzantine systems can send values between clusters with only linear wide-area messages instead of quadratic all-to-all communication.
With cluster signing, message size stays $O(\|v\|)$; with replica signing, certificates can be emulated at message size $O(\|v\| + f_{C_1})$ or optimized when certificates have constant size.
The protocols are one-way and leaderless, so they remain correct under dynamically changing faulty sets and do not require an acknowledgement phase in the reliable network model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A fair end-to-end comparison in practice must add the local consensus cost inside each cluster, which the lower bounds deliberately exclude; for very small clusters that cost could dominate the linear cross-cluster count.
The linear bound suggests cross-shard transactions in sharded Byzantine databases can be built from this primitive; the protocols here would provide the inter-shard send step.
One testable extension is to benchmark the partitioned protocols on highly unequal cluster sizes, where certificate emulation's $O(\|v\| + f_{C_1})$ message size may make broadcast-based baselines competitive despite higher message counts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The fault-tolerant cluster-sending paper is a solid theory contribution. It defines a clean primitive—sending a value reliably from one Byzantine cluster to another under crash or Byzantine failures—proves lower bounds that are linear in the cluster sizes, and presents protocols (bijective sending and partitioned variants) that match those bounds. The lower bounds appear to be genuinely new; the literature on consensus and reliable broadcast doesn't treat this multi-cluster, multi-sender, multi-receiver problem with confirmation.

What the paper does well: the crash lower bound is carefully argued, the protocol correctness proofs are detailed, and the complexity analysis is honest. The protocols are practical in spirit, and the matching bounds make the main claim convincing. I also appreciate the explicit treatment of cluster signing versus replica signing.

The main soft spot is Theorem 4.1. The theorem states a lower bound for both size orderings, but the proof only handles nC1 >= nC2 and never returns to the other case. The cluster-sending problem is not symmetric—C1 sends and C1 must confirm—so this isn't an automatic swap. That said, the missing case does have a dual proof (swap the roles of senders and receivers in the pigeonhole argument), so the result is likely correct. Still, the authors should write it out, because the optimality of the RPBS protocols for nC2 >= nC1 depends on it.

Theorem 4.2's Byzantine lower bound is also terse in places—several steps are condensed into 'one can show' and 'via a contradiction argument similar to...'. The argument is plausible, but it needs expansion for a skeptical reader. Also, the paper doesn't discuss how cluster-sending relates to multi-sender reliable broadcast, which seems like a relevant comparison and would help position the novelty.

The protocols rely on an off-the-shelf consensus protocol within each cluster, so the lower bounds don't count that internal cost. That's a reasonable modeling choice, but it should be stated more prominently.

Overall, the central claims hold up. If the authors fill in the missing lower-bound case and expand the Byzantine proof, this deserves publication. I'd send it to a serious referee without hesitation. It's a useful paper for anyone designing sharded blockchains or geo-scale replicated systems.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the cluster-sending problem, in which a value v is sent from cluster C1 to cluster C2 so that all non-faulty replicas of C2 receive v, v is sent only if C1 agreed, and C1 can confirm receipt. After formalizing the model with crash/omission/Byzantine failures, replica signing, and cluster signing, the paper gives broadcast-based protocols (RB-bcs, RB-brs), proves lower bounds on message complexity for crash failures (Theorem 4.1) and on certificate complexity for Byzantine failures with replica signing (Theorem 4.2), and then presents bijective-sending protocols (BS, SPBS, RPBS) that it claims meet these lower bounds and are therefore optimal (Theorem 6.6). The protocols exploit the observation that linear communication between clusters can replace quadratic all-to-all broadcasting.

Significance. If the optimality claims are fully established, the paper identifies a clean primitive for sharded Byzantine fault-tolerant systems and shows that cluster-to-cluster communication can be linear in cluster size, with matching lower bounds under two failure models. The paper's contributions are concrete and falsifiable, and the protocol constructions (bijective and partitioned bijective sending) are elegant and likely reusable. The main caveat is that one of the two cases of the crash lower bound is not proved in the text, and the Byzantine lower bound's second case is only sketched; because these cases are needed for the optimality of the RPBS protocols, the contribution is not yet fully supported.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Theorem 4.1] The theorem states a lower bound for both orderings of nC1 and nC2 via the index i for the larger cluster, but the proof begins "We assume i = 1, j = 2, and nC1 ≥ nC2" and never treats i = 2, j = 1. This is not a symmetry argument: C1 is always the sender and must confirm receipt, and the bound counts messages from C1 to C2, so interchanging the cluster names changes the problem. The missing case is exactly the regime used by RPBS-(σ2,bcs) in Theorem 6.6(1). Please give a full proof that any protocol using at most σ2−1 messages has a failure pattern in which no message from a non-faulty C1 replica reaches a non-faulty C2 replica.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.2(2)] The proof of the nC2 ≥ nC1 case is only sketched. The step "Via a contradiction argument similar to the one used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, one can show..." needs to be written out, since the quantities involved (nfC1 − fC1, fC2 + 1, 2fC1) are not the same as in the nC1 ≥ nC2 case. More importantly, the concluding indistinguishability argument is incomplete: after partitioning CR into CR,1 and CR,2, each signed by at most fC1 distinct replicas, it is not shown that the receiving cluster cannot tell the two executions apart; in particular the number of certificates per value and the protocol's acceptance rule are not addressed. This case underpins the optimality claim for RPBS-(τ2,brs) in Theorem 6.6(2).

minor comments (6)

[Section 2] The sentence "We extend the notations f(·), nf(·), n(·), f(·), and nf(·) to arbitrary sets of replicas" duplicates f(·) and omits n(·); the notation list should be corrected.
[Section 5, Proposition 5.3] In the proof, "nf S1 ≥ f(C1) + 1" should be "nf S1 ≥ fC1 + 1", since f(C1) is a set and the count is meant.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.2] The proof uses C both for a cluster and for the set of certificates sent in a run ("messages C, each message representing a single certificate"), which makes the argument harder to follow; a different name for the certificate set would help.
[Section 6, Propositions 6.4 and 6.5] The letter P is used both for the chosen subset of a cluster and for a generic element of its partition ("For each P ∈ partition(P)"), and the same overloading occurs for z(P); renaming the partition elements would improve readability.
[Theorem 6.6(2)] The phrase "Byzantine failures and replica sending" should read "Byzantine failures and replica signing" to match the terminology used throughout the paper.
[References] Reference [22] appears as "33nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing"; the ordinal should be "33rd".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cluster-sending lower bounds are proved independently of the proposed protocols, whose optimality is then shown by matching those bounds.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The cluster-sending problem is defined in Section 2 (Definition 2.1), and the lower bounds in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 are proved by adversary/pigeonhole arguments from that definition, not from the protocols. The protocols BS, SPBS, and RPBS are then constructed in Sections 5-6 and proved correct; Theorem 6.6 claims optimality only because the protocol message counts are shown to equal the independently derived lower-bound values sigma_1, sigma_2, tau_1, and tau_2. No parameter is fitted to data, no 'prediction' is a renamed input, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citation, the brief announcement [22], is not load-bearing. One non-circular defect should be noted: the proof of Theorem 4.1 begins 'We assume i=1, j=2, and nC1>=nC2' and does not return to the nC2>=nC1 case, which is the case needed for the RPBS optimality claims in Proposition 6.5 and Theorem 6.6. That is an omitted proof case, not a circular reduction: the missing case would require an independent argument, not an appeal to the paper's own conclusion. Similarly, Theorem 4.2's second case says 'Via a contradiction argument similar to the one used in the proof of Theorem 4.1' without giving the full argument; again this is a proof-completeness gap rather than circularity. Because the derivation of the lower bounds is not equivalent to the protocols' construction, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard distributed-systems modeling assumptions: reliable asynchronous message delivery, unforgeable signatures, free local communication, and the availability of an internal consensus protocol. These are all explicitly stated in the paper. No ad hoc parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Asynchronous reliable communication: all messages sent by non-faulty replicas eventually arrive.
Stated in Section 2; used in all protocol correctness proofs and lower bounds.
domain assumption Replica signing and cluster signing are non-forgeable, and faulty replicas cannot impersonate non-faulty replicas.
Stated in Section 2; required for the agreement properties of the protocols.
domain assumption Local communication within a cluster is free and unbounded, while global communication is costly.
Stated in Section 2; justifies counting only inter-cluster messages in complexity.
domain assumption Each cluster can reach agreement on a value using an off-the-shelf consensus protocol when necessary, requiring nC > 2fC for the sending cluster.
Footnote 1 and Section 2; the cluster-sending protocols inherit this requirement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fault-tolerant cluster-sending problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWD4KFGE

@misc{pith2026190801455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fault-tolerant cluster-sending problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWD4KFGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01455}
}

read the original abstract

The development of fault-tolerant distributed systems that can tolerate Byzantine behavior has traditionally been focused on consensus protocols, which support fully-replicated designs. For the development of more sophisticated high-performance Byzantine distributed systems, more specialized fault-tolerant communication primitives are necessary, however. In this paper, we identify an essential communication primitive and study it in depth. In specifics, we formalize the cluster-sending problem, the problem of sending a message from one Byzantine cluster to another Byzantine cluster in a reliable manner. We not only formalize this fundamental problem, but also establish lower bounds on the complexity of this problem under crash failures and Byzantine failures. Furthermore, we develop practical cluster-sending protocols that meet these lower bounds and, hence, have optimal complexity. As such, our work provides a strong foundation for the further exploration of novel designs that address challenges encountered in fault-tolerant distributed systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01455 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** RB-bcs, the reliable broadcast clustersending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume Byzantine failures and a system that provides cluster signing. no replica will ever try to forge messages of other replicas or send messages outside the scope of the relevant protocol. Hence, in this setting, replica signing or cluster signing does not add any reliability, implying there is no need for certificates.… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** RB-brs, the reliable broadcast clustersending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume Byzantine failures and a system that provides replica signing. r2 ∈ nf(S2) will meet the condition at Line 7 and broadcast (v,hviC1 ) to all replicas in C2. As nfS2 ≥ 1, each replica r 0 2 ∈ nf(C2) will meet the condition at Line 9, proving receipt and confirmation. We have agreement, as hviC1 is non-forgeable. As r… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: BS-bcs, the bijective sending cluster-sending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume Byzantine failures and a system that provides cluster signing. sends messages C, each message representing a single certificate, with |C| = τ1 − 1. Following the proo…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Bijection sending from C1 to C2. The faulty replicas are highlighted using a red background. The edges connect replicas r ∈ C1 with b(r) ∈ C2. Each solid edge indicates a message sent and received by non-faulty replicas. Each dashed edge indicates a message sent or r…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: BS-brs, the bijective sending cluster-sending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume Byzantine failures and a system that provides replica signing. C2 = {r9, . . . , r15} ∈ S with f(C2) = {r9, r11}. We have fC1 + fC2 + 1 = 6. We choose S1 = {r2, . . .…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: An example of a 4-partition of a cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: SPBS-(α,ζ), ζ ∈ {bcs, brs}, the senderpartitioned bijective sending cluster-sending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume the same system properties as BS-ζ. Protocol for the sending cluster C1: 1: The agreement step of BS-ζ for value v. 2: Choose re…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: RPBS-(α,ζ), ζ ∈ {bcs, brs}, the receiverpartitioned bijective sending cluster-sending protocol that sends a value v from C1 to C2. We assume the same system properties as BS-ζ. 2. If S provides replica signing and τ1 ≤ nC1 , then SPBS-(τ1,brs) satisfies Definition 2.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Steward: Scaling byzantine fault-tolerant replication to wide area networks

Yair Amir, Claudiu Danilov, Danny Dolev, Jonathan Kirsch, John Lane, Cristina Nita- Rotaru, Josh Olsen, and David Zage. Steward: Scaling byzantine fault-tolerant replication to wide area networks. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 7(1):80–93,

work page
[2]

Blockchain for development: Emerging opportunities for mobile, iden- tity and aid, 2017

GSM Association. Blockchain for development: Emerging opportunities for mobile, iden- tity and aid, 2017. URL: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/ uploads/2017/12/Blockchain-for-Development.pdf. 12

work page 2017
[3]

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 Transactions on Computer Systems , 32(4):12:1–12:45,

work page
[4]

RBFT: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance

Pierre-Louis Aublin, Sonia Ben Mokhtar, and Vivien Qu´ ema. RBFT: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance. In 2013 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 297–306. IEEE, 2013. doi:10.1109/ICDCS.2013.53

doi:10.1109/icdcs.2013.53 2013
[5]

Christian Berger and Hans P. Reiser. Scaling byzantine consensus: A broad analysis. In Proceedings of the 2Nd Workshop on Scalable and Resilient Infrastructures for Distributed Ledgers, SERIAL’18, pages 13–18. ACM, 2018. doi:10.1145/3284764.3284767

arXiv 2018
[6]

Blockchain in Europe: Closing the strategy gap

Burkhard Blechschmidt. Blockchain in Europe: Closing the strategy gap. Technical report, Cognizant Consulting, 2018. URL: https://www.cognizant.com/whitepapers/ blockchain-in-europe-closing-the-strategy-gap-codex3320.pdf

work page 2018
[7]

CAP twelve years later: How the “rules” have changed

Eric Brewer. CAP twelve years later: How the “rules” have changed. Computer, 45(2):23–29,

work page
[8]

Eric A. Brewer. Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing , pages 7–7. ACM, 2000. doi:10.1145/343477.343502

arXiv 2000

Show all 46 references

[9]

The impact of blockchain technology on ﬁnance: A catalyst for change

Michael Casey, Jonah Crane, Gary Gensler, Simon Johnson, and Neha Narula. The impact of blockchain technology on ﬁnance: A catalyst for change. Technical report, International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies, 2018. URL: https://www.cimb.ch/uploads/ 1/1/5/4/115414161/ge...

2018
[10]

Practical byzantine fault tolerance

Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation , pages 173–186. USENIX Association, 1999

1999
[11]

Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery

Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems , 20(4):398–461, 2002. doi:10.1145/ 571637.571640

2002
[12]

Major collection of the fall auction season to be recorded with blockchain technology, 2018

Christie’s. Major collection of the fall auction season to be recorded with blockchain technology, 2018. URL: https://www.christies.com/presscenter/pdf/9160/RELEASE_ ChristiesxArtoryxEbsworth_9160_1.pdf

2018
[13]

Making byzantine fault tolerant systems tolerate byzantine faults

Allen Clement, Edmund Wong, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, and Mirco Marchetti. Making byzantine fault tolerant systems tolerate byzantine faults. In Proceedings of the 6th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation , pages 153–168. USENIX Association, 2009

2009
[14]

Blockchain and GDPR: How blockchain could address ﬁve areas associated with gdpr compliance

Cindy Compert, Maurizio Luinetti, and Bertrand Portier. Blockchain and GDPR: How blockchain could address ﬁve areas associated with gdpr compliance. Technical report, IBM Security, 2018. URL: https://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/61/ en/61014461usen/security-ibm-security-s...

2018
[15]

Dolev and H

D. Dolev and H. Strong. Authenticated algorithms for byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing, 12(4):656–666, 1983. doi:10.1137/0212045

1983 doi
[16]

Blockchain for agriculture and food: Findings from the pilot study

Lan Ge, Christopher Brewster, Jacco Spek, Anton Smeenk, and Jan Top. Blockchain for agriculture and food: Findings from the pilot study. Technical report, Wageningen Univer- sity, 2017. URL: https://www.wur.nl/nl/Publicatie-details.htm?publicationId= publication-way-353330323634

2017
[17]

Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies

Yossi Gilad, Rotem Hemo, Silvio Micali, Georgios Vlachos, and Nickolai Zeldovich. Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 51–68. ACM, 2017. doi:10.1145/3132747.3132757

2017
[18]

Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services

Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch. Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News, 33(2):51–59, 2002. doi:10.1145/ 564585.564601. 13

2002
[19]

Gordon and Christian Catalini

William J. Gordon and Christian Catalini. Blockchain technology for healthcare: Facilitating the transition to patient-driven interoperability.Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 16:224–230, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.06.003

2018 doi
[20]

Brief announcement: revisiting consensus protocols through wait-free parallelization

Suyash Gupta, Jelle Hellings, and Mohammad Sadoghi. Brief announcement: revisiting consensus protocols through wait-free parallelization. In 33nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing, 2019

2019
[21]

Blockchain Transaction Processing, pages 1–11

Suyash Gupta and Mohammad Sadoghi. Blockchain Transaction Processing, pages 1–11. Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_333-1

2018 doi
[22]

Brief announcement: the fault-tolerant cluster- sending problem

Jelle Hellings and Mohammad Sadoghi. Brief announcement: the fault-tolerant cluster- sending problem. In 33nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing , 2019

2019
[23]

The promise of blockchain

Matt Higginson, Johannes-Tobias Lorenz, Bjrn Mnstermann, and Peter Braad Ole- sen. The promise of blockchain. Technical report, McKinsey&Company, 2017. URL: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the- promise-of-blockchain

2017
[24]

Kamel Boulos, James T

Maged N. Kamel Boulos, James T. Wilson, and Kevin A. Clauson. Geospatial blockchain: promises, challenges, and scenarios in health and healthcare. International Journal of Health Geographics, 17(1):1211–1220, 2018. doi:10.1186/s12942-018-0144-x

2018 doi
[25]

CheapBFT: Resource-eﬃcient byzantine fault tolerance

R¨ udiger Kapitza, Johannes Behl, Christian Cachin, Tobias Distler, Simon Kuhnle, Seyed Vahid Mohammadi, Wolfgang Schr¨ oder-Preikschat, and Klaus Stengel. CheapBFT: Resource-eﬃcient byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM European Confer- ence on Computer Sys...

2012
[26]

Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance

Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund Wong. Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of Twenty-ﬁrst ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles , pages 45–58. ACM, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1294261.1294267

2007
[27]

Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance

Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund Wong. Zyzzyva: Speculative byzantine fault tolerance. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems , 27(4):7:1–7:39, 2009. doi:10.1145/1658357.1658358

2009
[28]

The implementation of reliable distributed multiprocess systems

Leslie Lamport. The implementation of reliable distributed multiprocess systems. Computer Networks (1976), 2(2):95–114, 1978. doi:10.1016/0376-5075(78)90045-4

1976 doi
[29]

Paxos made simple

Leslie Lamport. Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News, Distributed Computing Column 5, 32(4):51–58, 2001. doi:10.1145/568425.568433

2001
[30]

Karame, and N

Jian Liu, Wenting Li, Ghassan O. Karame, and N. Asokan. Scalable byzantine consensus via hardware-assisted secret sharing. IEEE Transactions on Computers , 68(1):139–151,
[31]

Menezes, Scott A

Alfred J. Menezes, Scott A. Vanstone, and Paul C. Van Oorschot. Handbook of Applied Cryptography. CRC Press, Inc., 1st edition, 1996

1996
[32]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. URL: https://bitcoin. org/en/bitcoin-paper
[33]

Blockplane: A global-scale byzantizing middleware

Faisal Nawab and Mohammad Sadoghi. Blockplane: A global-scale byzantizing middleware. In 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , pages 124–135. IEEE, 2019. doi:10.1109/ICDE.2019.00020

2019
[34]

Tamer ¨Ozsu and Patrick Valduriez

M. Tamer ¨Ozsu and Patrick Valduriez. Principles of Distributed Database Systems . Springer New York, 3th edition, 2011

2011
[35]

Pease, R

M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM , 27(2):228–234, 1980. doi:10.1145/322186.322188

1980
[36]

Blockchain and economic development: Hype vs

Michael Pisa and Matt Juden. Blockchain and economic development: Hype vs. reality. Technical report, Center for Global Development, 2017. URL: https://www.cgdev.org/ publication/blockchain-and-economic-development-hype-vs-reality

2017
[37]

Blockchain – an opportunity for energy producers and consumers?,

PwC. Blockchain – an opportunity for energy producers and consumers?,
[38]

Practical threshold signatures

Victor Shoup. Practical threshold signatures. In Advances in Cryptology — EUROCRYPT 2000, pages 207–220. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000. doi:10.1007/3-540-45539-6_15

2000 doi
[39]

Introduction to Distributed Algorithms

Gerard Tel. Introduction to Distributed Algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2001

2001
[40]

Tanenbaum

Maarten van Steen and Andrew S. Tanenbaum. Distributed Systems. Maarten van Steen, 3th edition, 2017. URL: https://www.distributed-systems.net/

2017
[41]

Eﬃcient byzantine fault-tolerance

Santos Veronese Veronese, Miguel Correia, Alysson Neves Bessani, Lau Cheuk Lung, and Paulo Verissimo. Eﬃcient byzantine fault-tolerance. IEEE Transactions on Computers , 62(1):16–30, 2013. doi:10.1109/TC.2011.221

2013 doi
[42]

Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger

Gavin Wood. Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. EIP-150 revision. URL: https://gavwood.com/paper.pdf. 15
[2010]

doi:10.1109/TDSC.2008.53

2008 doi
[2012]

doi:10.1109/MC.2012.37

2012 doi
[2016]

URL: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/ 14 publications/opportunity-for-energy-producers.html
[2019]

doi:10.1109/TC.2018.2860009

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Steward: Scaling byzantine fault-tolerant replication to wide area networks

Yair Amir, Claudiu Danilov, Danny Dolev, Jonathan Kirsch, John Lane, Cristina Nita- Rotaru, Josh Olsen, and David Zage. Steward: Scaling byzantine fault-tolerant replication to wide area networks. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 7(1):80–93,

work page

[2] [2]

Blockchain for development: Emerging opportunities for mobile, iden- tity and aid, 2017

GSM Association. Blockchain for development: Emerging opportunities for mobile, iden- tity and aid, 2017. URL: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/ uploads/2017/12/Blockchain-for-Development.pdf. 12

work page 2017

[3] [3]

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 Transactions on Computer Systems , 32(4):12:1–12:45,

work page

[4] [4]

RBFT: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance

Pierre-Louis Aublin, Sonia Ben Mokhtar, and Vivien Qu´ ema. RBFT: Redundant byzantine fault tolerance. In 2013 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 297–306. IEEE, 2013. doi:10.1109/ICDCS.2013.53

doi:10.1109/icdcs.2013.53 2013

[5] [5]

Christian Berger and Hans P. Reiser. Scaling byzantine consensus: A broad analysis. In Proceedings of the 2Nd Workshop on Scalable and Resilient Infrastructures for Distributed Ledgers, SERIAL’18, pages 13–18. ACM, 2018. doi:10.1145/3284764.3284767

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

Blockchain in Europe: Closing the strategy gap

Burkhard Blechschmidt. Blockchain in Europe: Closing the strategy gap. Technical report, Cognizant Consulting, 2018. URL: https://www.cognizant.com/whitepapers/ blockchain-in-europe-closing-the-strategy-gap-codex3320.pdf

work page 2018

[7] [7]

CAP twelve years later: How the “rules” have changed

Eric Brewer. CAP twelve years later: How the “rules” have changed. Computer, 45(2):23–29,

work page

[8] [8]

Eric A. Brewer. Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing , pages 7–7. ACM, 2000. doi:10.1145/343477.343502

arXiv 2000