From df4505ef190a8f1471b35a501f4711552b2dd76a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Ray Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:54:08 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] \cite{Castro_Liskov_1999_pbft} --- papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex b/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex index ab65dc7..5947dac 100644 --- a/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex +++ b/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ There are, roughly speaking, two broad classes of consensus protocols known toda \subsection{Comparing Traditional Consensus to Blockchain Consensus} -Traditional consensus protocols (such as multi-Paxos and pbft) are notoriously difficult to understand\cite{paxos}. Blockchain consensus protocols, on the other hand, are much more accessible. This difference comes at least in part from the relative simplicity of Bitcoin's specification. +Traditional consensus protocols (such as multi-Paxos and pbft \cite{Castro_Liskov_1999_pbft}) are notoriously difficult to understand.\cite{paxos} Blockchain consensus protocols, on the other hand, are much more accessible. This difference comes at least in part from the relative simplicity of Bitcoin's specification. In the context of state machine replication, traditional protocols decide (with irrevocable finality) on one ``block'' of state transitions/transactions to add to the shared operation log at a time. To decide on a block, a node must receive $\mathcal{O}(N)$ messages, where $N$ is the number of consensus-forming nodes.