PBFT is a foundational multi-year project lead by Barbara Liskov and her students, obtaining major advances in both the theory and practice of Byzantine Fault Tolerance. The PBFT conference version, journal version, Castro’s thesis, Liskov’s talk, and follow up work on BASE are all required reading for anyone who wants to deeply understand BFT systems.

In this post we describe a variation of the authenticated version of PBFT using Locked Broadcast that follows a similar path as our previous post on Paxos using Recoverable Broadcast. I call this protocol linear PBFT because the number of messages per view is linear. However, the size of the view change message in the worst case is large. We discuss improving this in later post on Two Round HotStuff using Locked Broadcast. Other ways of reducing the view change message size is by using Three Round HotStuff via Keyed Broadcast, or by using SNARKS.

Variants of the linear PBFT protocol are used by SBFT, Tusk, Jolteon, DiemBFTv4, and Aptos.

The model is partial synchrony with $f<n/3$ Byzantine failures and the goal is consensus with external validity (see below for exact details).

As with Paxos, we present PBFT with two major simplifications:

  1. Use a simple revolving primary strategy assuming perfectly synchronized clocks. This approach follows Section 6 of Two Round HotStuff.
  2. Focus on a single-shot consensus while PBFT is designed as a full State Machine Replication system. See here for the next steps.

View-based protocol with simple rotating primary

Just as in Paxos, the protocol progresses in views, each view has a designated primary party. For simplicity, the primary of view $v$ is party $v \bmod n$.

Clocks are synchronized, and $\Delta$ (the delay after GST) is known, so set view $v$ to be the time interval $[v(10 \Delta),(v+1)(10 \Delta))$. In other words, each $10\Delta$ clock ticks each party triggers a view change and increments the view by one. Since clocks are assumed to be perfectly synchronized, all parties move in and out of each view in complete synchrony.

Single-shot Consensus with External Validity

There is some External Validity Boolean function ($EV_{\text{consensus}}$) that is provided to each party. $EV_{\text{consensus}}$ takes as input a value $v$ and a proof $proof$. If $EV_{\text{consensus}}(v, proof)=1$ we say that $v$ is externally valid. A simple example of external validity is a check that the value is signed by the client that controls the asset. External validity is based on the framework of Cachin, Kursawe, Petzold, and Shoup, 2001.

In this setting, each party has some externally valid input values (one or more) and the goal is to output a single external valid value, which is a (value, proof) pair with the following three properties:

Agreement: all non-faulty parties output the same (value, proof) pair.

Termination: all non-faulty parties eventually output a (value, proof) pair and terminate.

External Validity: the output is externally valid, $EV_{\text{consensus}}(value,proof)=1$.

Linear PBFT is decomposed to use two building blocks: Locked-Broadcast and Recover-Max-Lock. Let’s start with the outer shell of the linear PBFT that calls them.

Linear PBFT via Locked-Broadcast and Recover-Max-Lock

For view 1, the primary of view 1 with input (val, val-proof): 
    Locked-Broadcast (1, val, val-proof)
For view v>1, the primary of view v with input (val, val-proof):

    (p, R) := Recover-Max-Lock(v)

    if p = bot then 
        Locked-Broadcast (v, val, val-proof, R)
        Locked-Broadcast (v, p, R)

If a Locked-Broadcast outputs a valid delivery-certificate dc for x
    Send <decide, x, dc> to all
Upon receiving a valid <decide, x, dc> 
    Send <decide, x, x-dc> to all

In words, the primary first tries to recover the lock-certificate with the maximal view. If no lock-certificate is seen, the primary is free to choose its own externally valid input $val$, but even in that case, it adds the proof $R$ from the Recover-Max-Lock protocol. Otherwise, it proposes the output value $p$ from the Recover-Max-Lock along with its proof $R$. Note the similarity to the Paxos protocol variant of the previous post.

All that remains is to define Locked-Broadcast and Recover-Max-Lock.

Locked Broadcast

Locked broadcast is the application of two provable broadcasts with an external validity function, $EV_{\text{LB}}$, which obtains the following properties:

  • Termination: If the sender is honest and has an externally valid input $x$, then after a constant number of rounds the sender will obtain a delivery-certificate of $x$. Note that the Termination property guarantees that just the sender to hold the certificate (so we will need to propagate it via another round).
  • Uniqueness: If a delivery-certificate exists for $x$ then there cannot exist a delivery-certificate for $x’ \neq x$.
  • External Validity: If there is a delivery-certificate on $x=(value, proof)$ then $x$ is externally valid. So $EV_{\text{LB}}(value, proof)=1$.
  • Unique-Lock-Availability: If a delivery-certificate exists for $x$ then: (1) there cannot exist a lock-certificate for $x’ \neq x$; and (2) there are at least $n-2f\geq f+1$ honest parties that hold a lock-certificate for $x$.

Note that Locked Broadcast needs to define an external validity function $EV_{\text{LB}}$, which controls what outputs are allowed. $EV_{\text{LB}}$ is different from $EV_{\text{consensus}}$ (the external validity function of the underlying consensus protocol).

Before we define $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ for the Locked-Broadcast protocol in PBFT, we detail the Recover-Max-Lock protocol. Similar to Recover-Max of this Paxos, the Recover-Max-Lock protocol returns the highest lock-certificate it sees. Unlike Paxos, it also returns a proof that the primary chose the highest lock-certificate it saw out of a set of $n{-}f$ distinct lock-certificates it received. The external validity $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ of the locked-broadcast will check the validity of this proof.

Recover-Max-Lock for PBFT based protocols

Recover-Max-Lock for view $v$ finds the highest lock-certificate and returns not only the associated value but also the $n{-}f$ responses that allows one to verify that indeed the highest lock-certificate among some set of $n{-}f$ valid responses was used. A valid response is a response which includes a valid lock-certificate, and a valid lock-certificate includes $n{-}f$ distinct signatures.


Party i upon start of view v
    If it does not have any lock-certificate   
       send <echoed-max(v, bot)>_i to primary 
    Otherwise let  v' be the highest view with a lock-certificate
        let LC(v',p') be this lock certificate for value p'
        send <echoed-max(v, v', p', LC(v',p') )> to primary

Primary waits for n-f valid <echoed-max(v,*)>
    Let R be this set
    If all values in R are bot then output (bot, R)
    otherwise, output (p, R) 
        where p is the value associated with the highest view in R

With the Recover-Max-Lock defined, the definition of $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ for Locked-Broadcast should be natural. The Primary will input $(p,R)$ to Locked-Broadcast and the parties will check that $p$ is indeed the value associated with the highest view in R (or an externally valid value and all values in R are for $\bot$).

External Validity for the Locked-Broadcast of Linear PBFT

To define Locked-Broadcast for PBFT let’s define $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ which controls what messages to accept. The $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ function checks the validity of the primary’s messages. In view 1 and in the case the message is $(val,val{-}proof,R)$ we also use the external $EV_{\text{consensus}}$ as a subroutine to verify $val$ relative to $val{-}proof$.

Informally, $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ for view $v>1$, either checks that $n{-}f$ parties say they saw no lock-certificate and the new value is externally valid for consensus; or that the primary proposes the value that is associated with a lock-certificate and the view of this lock-certificate is the highest one among a set of $n{-}f$ valid <echoed-max(v, * )> messages.

Define $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ for view $v$:

For view 1 set EV-LB-PBFT (1, val, val-proof)= EV-consensus(val, val-proof)
For view v>1 there are two cases for EV-LB-PBFT(v, *):

Given * is a 3-tuple (val, val-proof, R):
    1. Check R consists of n-f distinct valid <echoed-max(v, bot)> messages
    2. Check EV-consensus(val, val-proof) = 1

Given * is a 2-tuple (p, R):
    1. Check R consists of n-f distinct valid <echoed-max(v, * )> messages
    2. Check each <echoed-max(v, v', p', LC(v',p') )> in R:
        has a valid lock-certificate LC(v') for view v' and value p'
    3. Let w, q, LC(w,q) be the valid <echoed-max(v, * )> response with the highest view w in R
        Check p = q (p is from the lock-certificate with highest view in R).

Observe that a valid proof R may contain up to $n{-}f$ distinct lock-certificates (from different views) and each valid lock-certificate contains $n{-}f$ distinct signatures (from different parties) so without compressing, R contains $O(n^2)$ words.

This completes the description of the consensus protocol. The protocol is detailed in 4 places: the linear PBFT consensus protocol, the recover-max lock protocol, the locked-broadcast protocol, and finally the external validity of the locked-broadcast. Let’s prove that the three properties of consensus hold:

Agreement (Safety)

Safety Lemma: Let $v^{\star}$ be the first view with a commit-certificate on $(v^\star, x)$, then for any view $v \geq v^\star$, if a lock-certificate forms for view $v$, it must be with value $x$.

Exercise: prove the Agreement property follows from the Safety Lemma above.

Let’s prove the safety lemma, which is the essence of PBFT.

Proof of Safety Lemma: Let $S$ (for Sentinels) be the set of non-faulty parties among the $n{-}f$ parties that sent a lock-certificate in the second round of locked broadcast of view $v^\star$. Note that $|S| \geq n{-}2f \geq f{+}1$.

Induction statement: for any view $v\geq v^\star$:

  1. If there is a lock-certificate for view $v$ then it has value $x$.
  2. For each party in $S$, in view $v$, its lock-certificate with the highest view $v’$ is such that:
    1. $v’ \geq v^\star$; and
    2. The value of this lock-certificate is $x$.

For the base case, $v=v^\star$: (1.) follows from the Uniqueness property of locked broadcast of view $v^\star$ and (2.) follows from the Unique-Lock-Availability property of locked broadcast.

Now suppose the induction statement holds for all views $v^\star \leq v$ and consider view $v+1$:

Use the External Validity property of locked broadcast and the definition of $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ above: to form a lock-certificate, the primary needs at least $n{-}2f$ non-faulty parties to view its proposal as valid.

Observe that by definition of $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ for view $v+1$: any valid R must include a lock-certificate sent by some member of $S$ for view $v+1$. This is true because R must include $n{-}f$ distinct and valid <echoed-max v, *> responses and the set $S$ is of size at lest $f+1$.

Use the induction hypothesis on views $v^\star \leq v$: from (2.) and the above argument, R must contain a lock-certificate of view at least $v^\star $ and value $x$. From (1.) any lock-certificate in R is either of view $< v^\star$ or of value $x$. Hence the value associated with the maximal view lock-certificate in R must be $x$. This concludes the proof of (1.) for view $v+1$.

Given (1.) for view $v+1$, (2.) follows, the only thing that may happen is that some members in $S$ see a lock-certificate for view $v+1$ and update their highest lock-certificate. The value will remain $x$. This concludes the proof of the Safety Lemma.


Consider the view $v^+$ with the first non-faulty Primary that started after GST. Denote this start time as time $T$. Due to clock synchronization and being after GST, then on or before time $T+ \Delta$ the primary will receive <echoed-max(v+,*)> from all non-faulty parties (at least $n{-}f$ parties). Hence the non-faulty will send a value $LB(v^+, *)$ that (1) will arrive at all non-faulty parties on or before time $T+2\Delta$ and (2) will have a $proof$ that is valid. Hence all non-faulty parties will pass the $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ condition for view $v^+ $ (they are still in view $v^+$). So the primary will obtain a delivery-certificate on or before time $T+5\Delta$ (locked broadcast takes at most $4 \Delta$) and all non-faulty will decide on or before time $T+6\Delta$.

This concludes the proof of Liveness.


Add the following validated termination gadget:

If the consensus protocol outputs x and valid delivery-certificate dc for x
    Send <decide, x, dc> to all
Upon receiving a valid <decide, x, dc> 
    Send <decide, x, x-dc> to all

Exercise: Prove that if a non-faulty party terminates, then eventually all non-faulty parties terminate.

External Validity

External validity is proven by induction on the chain of lock-certificates. For a lock-certificate that is formed with an $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ check that has no prior lock certificate, external validity is part of the $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ function check. For a lock-certificate that is formed with an $EV_{\text{LB-PBFT}}$ check that checks a previous lock-certificate, then this new lock-certificate must use the same value as the previous lock-certificate. An induction argument shows that any lock-certificate must have an externally valid value.

Time and Message Complexity

The time and number of messages before GST can be both unbounded, so we measure the time and message complexity after GST.

Time complexity: since the liveness proof requires waiting for the first non-faulty primary after GST this may take: an interrupted view of an honest primary, then in the worst case this may require $f$ views of faulty primaries, then a good view. So all parties will output a value in at most $(f+2)10 \Delta = O(f \Delta)$ time after GST. This is asymptotically optimal but not optimized.

Message Complexity: since each view has a linear message exchange, the total number of messages sent after GST is $O(f \times n) = O(n^2)$. This is asymptotically optimal.

However, the number of bits in each message is large and not optimal. The size of a lock-certificate or a delivery-certificate is $O(n)$ signatures. More worrisome, the size of a R that is sent in the locked broadcast can be $O(n^2)$ signatures because it may contain $O(n)$ lock-certificates (for different views).

Lock-certificates can be reduced to a single signature by using threshold signatures. Reducing the size of the R below $O(n)$ signatures requires either more powerful succinct proofs (for example, a SNARK) or a slightly different protocol. We will explore both in future posts.


In later posts, we will show other view synchronization solutions, and HotStuff which also provides responsiveness.


Many thanks to Kartik Nayak for insightful comments.

Your comments on Twitter.