Federated Byzantine Agreement System

Then, each validating node calculates a new ledger with all transactions (with an 80% UNL agreement) and calculates the hash ledger, Signs and shipments Formally, we can define a federal byzantine arrangement system (FBAS) that compromises a pair of a series of V nodes and a quorum as opposed to BFT, the stellar consensus mechanism is a kind of federated bizantin agreement (FBA) called the Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP). Errors appear in the Stellar network in the form of faulty or malicious nodes. Stellar can offer security (or a guarantee that nothing unwanted, like a network fork. B, never will happen) because participants in its system can continue to vote for their desired outcome until a consensus is reached. If there is ever a gap – if a quorum (the group of nodes that are sufficient to reach a consensus) fails to agree on what should be put into the ledger – then the whole network will cease to function until a consensus is reached. ¬∑ Robust in the face of a failure (one node can go down and the rest of the system remains intact) In addition, system-wide agreement is achieved when overlapping quorum slices communicate transactions. To continue with the example of tree planting after you and your neighbors have agreed to plant the tree in your yard, take it to your local city council, which in turn legitimizes the action for the rest of the city. The trust position is set up in the node configuration file. Because nodes can have different configuration files, slices and quorums can form dynamically within a network. A good quorum divides the nodes, resulting in overlapping quorums. This overlap is called the quorum intersection. If quorums do not intersect, the system ends with “incoherent quorums.” Incoherent quorums are not welcome, as each of them can agree independently and at the same time on contradictory transactions, undermining the general consensus.

A quorum-slice can convince a single node of an agreement, while a quorum convinces the entire match system. If a knot finds some fully trustworthy quorum-slice, it may agree to go with what the quorum slice has agreed. The above aspects of the Stellar Consensus System are a solution to a consensus dilemma called the General Byzantine Problem (BGP). The problem describes a scenario in which a large Byzantine army tries to conquer a resistant city and must choose together to attack or withdraw. Because of its size, the army is led by many generals who must coordinate through messengers. The problem stems from the failure of communication and the reliability of generals and messengers, some of whom may be traitors. To solve the BGP dilemma, the Byzantine margin of error (BFT) is necessary if all trusted generals come to the same conclusion despite a small number of traitors and failures. In other words, consensus in a distributed system (such as a blockchain or analog Byzantine army) can be achieved with the BFT, a failure-resistant method that supports the activities of the wrong actors. The difference between traditional Byzantine arrangement systems and FBA systems is that in the latter node, each node chooses its own quorum slices.

Quorum is the number of nodes needed to reach an agreement within a system. Instead, FBAs use “quorum slices.” A quorum-slice is a subset of a quorum that can convince another particular knot to accept. FBAS is designed so that the protocol can always find consensus, even if the nodes join or leave.