Rational Agreement in the Presence of Crash Faults
Alejandro Ranchal-Pedrosa, Vincent Gramoli

TL;DR
This paper explores the challenges of achieving consensus in blockchain systems with rational and crash faults, introducing the concept of baiting strategies to enhance security and establishing equivalences between crash and Byzantine fault models.
Contribution
It presents an impossibility result for crash fault consensus without baiting and establishes a formal link between crash and Byzantine fault tolerant games, highlighting baiting's potential.
Findings
No $(k,t)$-robust consensus in crash model if $k+2t \,\geq\, n$ without baiting
Baiting strategies are essential for secure consensus in crash models
Equivalence between crash fault tolerant and Byzantine fault tolerant games
Abstract
Blockchain systems need to solve consensus despite the presence of rational users and failures. The notion of -robustness has shown instrumental to list problems that cannot be solved if players are rational and players are Byzantine or act arbitrarily. What is less clear is whether one can solve such problems if the faults are benign. In this paper, we bridge the gap between games that are robust against Byzantine players and games that are robust against crash players. Our first result is an impossibility result: We show that no -robust consensus protocol can solve consensus in the crash model if unless there is a particular punishment strategy, called the -baiting strategy. This reveals the need to introduce baiting as the act of rewarding a colluding node when betraying its coalition, to make blockchains more secure. Our second result…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
