The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults
Open accessAbstract
The problem addressed here concerns a set of isolated processors, some unknown subset of which may be faulty, that communicate only by means of two-party messages. Each nonfaulty processor has a private value of information that must be communicated to each other nonfaulty processor. Nonfaulty processors always communicate honestly, whereas faulty processors may lie. The problem is to devise an algorithm in which processors communicate their own values and relay values received from others that allows each nonfaulty processor to infer a value for each other processor. The value inferred for a nonfaulty processor must be that processor's private value, and the value inferred for a faulty one must be consistent with the corresponding value inferred by each other nonfaulty processor. It is shown that the problem is solvable for, and only for, n ≥ 3 m + 1, where m is the number of faulty processors and n is the total number. It is also shown that if faulty processors can refuse to pass on information but cannot falsely relay information, the problem is solvable for arbitrary n ≥ m ≥ 0. This weaker assumption can be approximated in practice using cryptographic methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems
Rivest, R. L., Shamir, A., & Adleman, L. (1978) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359340.359342 · Cited by 13,462
Cited by
The Byzantine generals problem
Lamport, L., Shostak, R., & Pease, M. (1982) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/357172.357176 · Cited by 6,023
Self-citationPractical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (2002) · ACM Transactions on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/571637.571640 · Cited by 2,475
RapidChain: Scaling Blockchain via Full Sharding
Zamani, M., Movahedi, M., & Raykova, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3243734.3243853 · Cited by 1,121
Li, L., Liu, J., Cheng, L., Qiu, S., Wang, W., Zhang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2017.2777990 · Cited by 571
Survey on blockchain for Internet of Things
Wang, X., Zha, X., Ni, W., Liu, R. P., Guo, Y. J., Niu, X., & Zheng, K. (2019) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2019.01.006 · Cited by 567
Metadata
- Authors
- Pease, M., Shostak, R., & Lamport, L.
- Venue
- Journal of the ACM
- Published
- 1980-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 228-234
- ISSN
- 0004-5411 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-735X
- OpenAlex
- W2126924915
- Cited by
- 2,359
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/322186.322188
- The paper
- Pease, M., Shostak, R., & Lamport, L. (1980). Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults. Journal of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/322186.322188
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.