New answers tagged

4

They really don't have any similarities, so I'm not sure that there's much point in comparing them or talking about their differences. If you understand what PoW is and what it does and you understand BFT algorithms and what they do, there's no much else to know. Both algorithms are algorithms designed to get eventual agreement on how to make forward ...


0

The intuition here... could two nodes get to the point that the majority (e.g. both nodes) agree? If one of the nodes is malicious, then no, that node can always vote against the honest node. Could three? Seems like they might - couldn't the two honest nodes figure out who the third dishonest node is? But in fact, they cannot - the dishonest node D can tell ...


0

PoW and BFT solve different problems. A couple of differences: BFT assumes the nodes (aka miners) are known in advance. PoW / Nakamoto Consensus allows anyone to become a node (miner). BFT assumes nodes do not change over time. PoW / Nakamoto Consensus does not make this assumption. BFT does not allow forks. PoW/NC allows temporary forks under normal ...


1

Lamport et al's paper describes multiple problems, each with a unique situation. Liveness is solved for all of those situation as long as the network is synchronous. The original paper doesn't attempt to solve for asynchronous networks, and in fact later work proves that it is impossible to solve consensus in asynchronous networks (FLP). A latter paper ...


0

BFT is a class of problems where a group of nodes needs to find consensus, where some of the nodes may be malicious. PBFT is an algorithm that generates consensus in one of those environments (specifically with signed messages and partially sychronous network). An good writeup is here: https://medium.com/s/story/lets-take-a-crack-at-understanding-distributed-...


Top 50 recent answers are included