Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance¶
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (1999). Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’99), 173-186.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Fault Tolerance
- A common failure is assuming crash-stop guarantees while experiencing byzantine faults in reality (silent data corruption, partial failures, timing attacks), producing incorrect behavior where safety was thought assured
This sourcePractical BFT replication tolerating arbitrary (Byzantine) behavior, requiring 3f+1 replicas to tolerate f faults versus 2f+1 for crash-only consensus.
- A common failure is assuming crash-stop guarantees while experiencing byzantine faults in reality (silent data corruption, partial failures, timing attacks), producing incorrect behavior where safety was thought assured
Mechanisms¶
- Byzantine-Fault Quorum Protocol
- Its strength is tolerating adversarial participants: it holds agreement together when members may forge, conflict, or collude up to the declared bound, and it produces proof that any outsider can check — the property that made the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance line of protocols
This sourcePresents a practical protocol that preserves replicated-service agreement despite a bounded number of Byzantine participants that may behave arbitrarily or maliciously.
- Its strength is tolerating adversarial participants: it holds agreement together when members may forge, conflict, or collude up to the declared bound, and it produces proof that any outsider can check — the property that made the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance line of protocols
- View-Change Protocol
- The service never double-orders a settlement and never loses a committed one.
This sourceProves PBFT safety across view changes by preserving a single request order and carrying forward requests that could already have committed.
- The service never double-orders a settlement and never loses a committed one.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:0dcad096f342 · see in the full table