MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Modeling and Analysis of Hotstuff for Blockchain Consensus

2022· article· en· W4312471121 on OpenAlexaff
Yahya Shahsavari, Kaiwen Zhang, Chamseddine Talhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBlockchainByzantine fault toleranceDistributed computingCryptocurrencyBounded functionNetwork packetRobustness (evolution)Protocol (science)ConsensusConsensus algorithmLatency (audio)Computer networkDatabase transactionThroughputFault toleranceComputer securityAlgorithmWirelessMulti-agent systemArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) protocols are classical algorithms that offer a faster and more energy-efficient consensus mechanism compared to Proof-of-Work (PoW), which is typically used by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Synchronous BFT systems are hard to implement and vulnerable to attacks that aim to disrupt the synchrony of the system. Practical BFT (PBFT), which is a partially synchronous protocol, is a high-performance consensus algorithm that provides strong safety in the presence of a bounded number of faulty participants. Hotstuff is one such partially synchronous BFT State Machine Replication (SMR) protocol that aims to address the aforementioned issues. PBFT is becoming a popular choice for blockchain consensus, especially in permissioned systems (e.g. Ripple, Stellar, etc). However, it is not well understood how Hotstuff, and PBFT consensus in general, behave under varying conditions that are commonly found in blockchain networks. In this paper, we present a theoretical model for the Hotstuff consensus mechanism which accurately predicts blockchain-related metrics such as the transaction throughput and expected confirmation time using important networking parameters such as the number of replicas, link latency, and packet loss. Furthermore, we validate our model through extensive simulations carried out using OMNeT++. Our results show that Hotstuff performance degrades drastically when the number of replicas increases. We observe that with a maximum number of tolerable faulty nodes, when the number of validators is increased to 127, throughput tends to zero. As well, packet loss ratio and transaction processing time are two other factors that significantly affect the performance of Hotstuff.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207