feat(FLP): define pseudo-consensus and prove that it is implied by consensus#718
Open
ctchou wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
feat(FLP): define pseudo-consensus and prove that it is implied by consensus#718ctchou wants to merge 2 commits into
ctchou wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR defines the notion of a fault-tolerant "pseudo-consensus" algorithm, which is central to Völzer's proof, and proves that every f-tolerant consensus algorithm is also a f-tolerant pseudo-consensus algorithm. This resilt is intuitively obvious and is stated without proof in Völzer's paper, but it turns out to require quite a bit of formal machinery (given in
FairSchedular.ean) to prove.Zulip discussion: #CSLib > Impossibility of distributed consensus