pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04687 · v1 · pith:BGG3E3MHnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 💻 cs.DC

Clownfish: Scaling DAG-based BFT Consensus via Sparse Edges

Feifan Wang , Jingfan Yu , Zixi Cai , Zhixuan Fang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords DAG-based BFTcommunication complexitysparse edgesconsistent broadcastpartial synchronyconsensus protocolscalabilityByzantine fault tolerance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Clownfish attains quadratic communication complexity in DAG-based BFT by selectively sparsifying edges per vertex.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents Clownfish as a partially synchronous DAG-based BFT protocol that addresses scalability limits by reducing the number of edges each vertex references from prior rounds. This selective sparsification, paired with a communication-optimal consistent broadcast, brings total per-round communication down to quadratic order, which is lower than the costs in earlier DAG designs that used linear edges. The work also introduces an optimized round advancement rule that cuts extra latency during failures and allows multiple leaders per round without raising communication. These changes target the bandwidth bottleneck that has constrained high-throughput DAG protocols in larger deployments. A reader would care because quadratic scaling opens the possibility of running these protocols on wider networks while keeping their practical speed advantages.

Core claim

Clownfish is a partially synchronous DAG-based BFT protocol that lowers communication complexity by selectively reducing the number of edges each vertex includes to previous rounds. When combined with a communication-optimal consistent broadcast, this yields quadratic total communication per round, an improvement over prior DAG protocols. The protocol further reduces failure-case latency by refining the round advancement rule and permits multiple leaders per round while retaining the lower complexity.

What carries the argument

Sparse edges: the selective reduction of references to previous-round vertices in each DAG vertex, combined with a communication-optimal consistent broadcast to preserve correctness.

If this is right

  • Total communication per round drops to quadratic order rather than the higher costs of linear-edge DAG protocols.
  • Additional latency in failure cases decreases through the optimized round advancement rule.
  • Multiple leaders per round become feasible without increasing communication complexity.
  • Experimental runs show measurably better scalability than existing DAG-based protocols.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sparse-edge pattern could be applied to other broadcast-centric consensus constructions to reduce their bandwidth use.
  • In bandwidth-constrained wide-area settings the approach might allow larger participant sets before communication saturates.
  • Pairing the design with alternative consistent-broadcast primitives would be a direct next measurement to quantify further gains.

Load-bearing premise

Selectively reducing the number of edges per DAG vertex still preserves the safety and liveness guarantees of the underlying BFT protocol under partial synchrony.

What would settle it

A concrete execution trace or simulation in which the reduced-edge DAG violates agreement or fails to terminate under partial synchrony with a bounded number of Byzantine faults.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04687 by Feifan Wang, Jingfan Yu, Zhixuan Fang, Zixi Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the challenge. Here, 𝑛 = 4 and 𝑓 = 1, with a pre-designated leader assigned for each round. A strong edge denotes a reference to a vertex in the previous round. According to the commit rule in Sailfish [40], 𝐿𝑉𝑟 is committed as it receives 2𝑓 + 1 votes. (1) The left side depicts an execution in Sailfish. Since all vertices reference at least 2𝑓 + 1 vertices from the previous round, a path e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of Clownfish. 𝐿𝑉𝑟−1 and 𝐿𝑉𝑟 are directly committed. The vertices created by replicas 𝑝1 and 𝑝4 in round 𝑟 +2 reference 𝐿𝑉𝑟 via leader edges. In addition to 2𝑓 +1 strong edges, 𝐿𝑉𝑟+3 provides 𝑁𝑉𝐶𝑟+2 to prove that 𝐿𝑉𝑟+2 cannot be directly committed. Together, strong edges and leader edges constitute a leader path between 𝐿𝑉𝑟+3 and 𝐿𝑉𝑟 . leader path specifically denotes a path between two leader … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance comparison under failure-free case with varying numbers of replicas. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Throughput / latency at 𝑛 = 50 without failures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Throughput / latency at 𝑛 = 50 with 16 crash failures. Figure 3c summarizes the per-round metadata communication of different protocols, where each signature is counted as one unit of metadata. The dashed lines show polynomial fits of appropriate de￾gree. Consistent with the theoretical analysis, Sailfish exhibits cubic communication complexity, while Sparse Bullshark and Clownfish both exhibit quadratic c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of Multi-leader protocols at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of Clownfish’s fast-vote mechanism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of Multi-leader Clownfish. Delay the round timer. Existing DAG-based protocols (including basic Clownfish) initiate the timer immediately upon entering a round [40, 43]. In CBC-based Clownfish, this approach may cause a long timeout duration. The intuition is that when the first honest replica enters round 𝑟+1, the remaining replicas are only guaranteed to enter round 𝑟 within Δ (after GST). C… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of CBC-based Multi-leader Clownfish. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) based BFT protocols have demonstrated the capability to achieve significantly high throughput in practice. Recent advancements focused on minimizing the good-case latency of these protocols, approaching the theoretical lower bound. However, the high communication complexity inherent in existing DAG-based protocols limits their scalability. This primarily arises because each vertex in the DAG must include a linear number of edges (references) to vertices from previous rounds. We present Clownfish, a partially synchronous DAG-based BFT protocol designed to address the scalability bottleneck. Clownfish achieves lower communication complexity by selectively reducing the number of edges in DAG vertices. When using a communication-optimal consistent broadcast, Clownfish attains quadratic total communication complexity per round, outperforming prior DAG-based protocols. Clownfish also reduces the additional latency in failure cases by optimizing the round advancement rule. Additionally, Clownfish supports multiple leaders per round to reduce average latency while maintaining its lower communication complexity. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that Clownfish provides significantly better scalability than existing DAG-based protocols.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents Clownfish, a partially synchronous DAG-based BFT protocol that selectively reduces the number of edges per DAG vertex to lower communication complexity. It claims quadratic total communication per round when paired with a communication-optimal consistent broadcast, reduced failure-case latency via an optimized round-advancement rule, support for multiple leaders per round, and experimental results showing improved scalability over prior DAG-based protocols.

Significance. If the sparse-edge construction preserves the required DAG connectivity, ordering, and termination properties, the result would meaningfully improve the scalability of high-throughput DAG-based BFT protocols by moving from linear to sub-linear edges per vertex while retaining the latency benefits of recent DAG designs; the inclusion of an experimental evaluation is a positive step toward practical validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Protocol description (edge-selection rule)] The central claim that selectively reducing edges still guarantees that every honest vertex eventually reaches all others, that round advancement terminates, and that honest nodes agree on the total order under partial synchrony is load-bearing for the quadratic-complexity result, yet the concrete edge-selection rule and the argument establishing these invariants are not visible; without an explicit mapping or theorem, the reduction cannot be verified.
  2. [Communication-complexity analysis] The abstract asserts quadratic total communication complexity per round, but the derivation that the combination of sparse edges plus the communication-optimal consistent broadcast actually yields O(n^{2}) rather than a higher bound (or a fitted quantity) is not shown; this step must be made explicit to support the outperforming-prior-protocols claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly named the edge-selection heuristic or the round-advancement optimization rather than describing them only at a high level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and explicit arguments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Protocol description (edge-selection rule)] The central claim that selectively reducing edges still guarantees that every honest vertex eventually reaches all others, that round advancement terminates, and that honest nodes agree on the total order under partial synchrony is load-bearing for the quadratic-complexity result, yet the concrete edge-selection rule and the argument establishing these invariants are not visible; without an explicit mapping or theorem, the reduction cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the edge-selection rule and the formal invariants were not presented with sufficient explicitness in the submitted manuscript. In the revision we will add a precise description of the edge-selection rule (including the mapping from vertices to prior-round references) in the protocol section and state a theorem with proof sketch establishing eventual connectivity, round-advancement termination, and agreement under partial synchrony. This will make the quadratic-complexity claim directly verifiable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Communication-complexity analysis] The abstract asserts quadratic total communication complexity per round, but the derivation that the combination of sparse edges plus the communication-optimal consistent broadcast actually yields O(n^{2}) rather than a higher bound (or a fitted quantity) is not shown; this step must be made explicit to support the outperforming-prior-protocols claim.

    Authors: We will expand the communication-complexity section to include an explicit derivation showing that the sparse-edge construction combined with the communication-optimal consistent broadcast yields O(n²) total communication per round. This will be supported by a formal bound and comparison to prior linear-per-vertex DAG protocols. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in protocol claims or derivation

full rationale

The manuscript describes a new partially synchronous DAG-based BFT protocol that selectively reduces edges per vertex while relying on an external communication-optimal consistent broadcast primitive. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations that bear the central safety/liveness argument, or ansatzes smuggled via prior author work appear in the abstract or described claims. The quadratic communication result follows directly from the stated edge reduction plus the broadcast primitive's properties; these are independent of the present paper's construction and remain externally falsifiable. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only input supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; ledger left empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5715 in / 899 out tokens · 24583 ms · 2026-06-28T04:23:22.026154+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ittai Abraham, Kartik Nayak, Ling Ren, and Zhuolun Xiang. 2021. Good-case latency of byzantine broadcast: A complete categorization. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 331–341

    2021

  2. [2]

    Nicolas Alhaddad, Sourav Das, Sisi Duan, Ling Ren, Mayank Varia, Zhuolun Xiang, and Haibin Zhang. 2022. Balanced byzantine reliable broadcast with near-optimal communication and improved computation. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 399–417

    2022

  3. [3]

    Salem Alqahtani and Murat Demirbas. 2021. Bottlenecks in blockchain consensus protocols. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Omni-Layer Intelligent Systems (COINS). IEEE, 1–8

    2021

  4. [4]

    Michael Anoprenko, Andrei Tonkikh, Alexander Spiegelman, and Petr Kuznetsov

  5. [5]

    DAGs for the Masses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13998(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Aptoscan. 2026. Aptoscan: Blocks Explorer. Retrieved Accessed: 2026-01-31 from https://aptoscan.com/blocks

    2026

  7. [7]

    Balaji Arun, Zekun Li, Florian Suri-Payer, Sourav Das, and Alexander Spiegelman

  8. [8]

    In 22nd USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 25)

    Shoal++: High Throughput {DAG} {BFT} Can Be Fast and Robust!. In 22nd USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 25). 813–826

  9. [9]

    Kushal Babel, Andrey Chursin, George Danezis, Anastasios Kichidis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Arun Koshy, Alberto Sonnino, and Mingwei Tian. 2025. MYS- TICETI: Reaching the Latency Limits with Uncertified DAGs. InNetwork and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Leemon Baird. 2016. The swirlds hashgraph consensus algorithm: Fair, fast, byzantine fault tolerance.Swirlds Tech Reports SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01, Tech. Rep 34 (2016), 9–11

    2016

  11. [11]

    Sam Blackshear, Andrey Chursin, George Danezis, Anastasios Kichidis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Xun Li, Mark Logan, Ashok Menon, Todd Nowacki, Alberto Sonnino, et al. 2024. Sui lutris: A blockchain combining broadcast and consen- sus. InProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2606–2620

    2024

  12. [12]

    Dan Boneh, Ben Lynn, and Hovav Shacham. 2004. Short signatures from the Weil pairing.Journal of cryptology17, 4 (2004), 297–319

    2004

  13. [13]

    Gabriel Bracha. 1987. Asynchronous Byzantine agreement protocols.Information and computation75, 2 (1987), 130–143

    1987

  14. [14]

    Manuel Bravo, Gregory Chockler, and Alexey Gotsman. 2022. Making byzantine consensus live.Distributed Computing35, 6 (2022), 503–532

    2022

  15. [15]

    Ethan Buchman, Jae Kwon, and Zarko Milosevic. 2018. The latest gossip on BFT consensus.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.04938(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    2011.Introduction to reliable and secure distributed programming

    Christian Cachin, Rachid Guerraoui, and Luís Rodrigues. 2011.Introduction to reliable and secure distributed programming. Springer Science & Business Media

    2011

  17. [17]

    Miguel Castro, Barbara Liskov, et al. 1999. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In OSDI (99, 1999). 173–186

    1999

  18. [18]

    Benjamin Y Chan and Rafael Pass. 2023. Simplex consensus: A simple and fast consensus protocol. InTheory of Cryptography Conference. Springer, 452–479

    2023

  19. [19]

    Shir Cohen, Rati Gelashvili, Lefteris Kokoris Kogias, Zekun Li, Dahlia Malkhi, Alberto Sonnino, and Alexander Spiegelman. 2022. Be aware of your leaders. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 279–295

    2022

  20. [20]

    Xiaohai Dai, Zhaonan Zhang, Jiang Xiao, Jingtao Yue, Xia Xie, and Hai Jin. 2023. GradedDAG: An asynchronous DAG-based BFT consensus with lower latency. In2023 42nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). IEEE, 107–117

    2023

  21. [21]

    George Danezis, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Alberto Sonnino, and Alexander Spiegelman. 2022. Narwhal and tusk: a dag-based mempool and efficient bft consensus. InProceedings of the Seventeenth European Conference on Computer Systems. 34–50

    2022

  22. [22]

    Sourav Das, Zhuolun Xiang, and Ling Ren. 2021. Asynchronous data dissemina- tion and its applications. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2705–2721

    2021

  23. [23]

    Cynthia Dwork, Nancy Lynch, and Larry Stockmeyer. 1988. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony.Journal of the ACM (JACM)35, 2 (1988), 288–323

    1988

  24. [24]

    Michael J Fischer, Nancy A Lynch, and Michael S Paterson. 1985. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process.Journal of the ACM (JACM)32, 2 (1985), 374–382

    1985

  25. [25]

    Adam Gągol, Damian Leśniak, Damian Straszak, and Michał Świętek. 2019. Aleph: Efficient atomic broadcast in asynchronous networks with byzantine nodes. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. 214–228

    2019

  26. [26]

    Yingzi Gao, Yuan Lu, Zhenliang Lu, Qiang Tang, Jing Xu, and Zhenfeng Zhang

  27. [27]

    InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Dumbo-ng: Fast asynchronous bft consensus with throughput-oblivious latency. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1187–1201

    2022

  28. [28]

    Rati Gelashvili, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Alberto Sonnino, Alexander Spiegelman, and Zhuolun Xiang. 2022. Jolteon and ditto: Network-adaptive efficient consensus with asynchronous fallback. InInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security. Springer, 296–315

    2022

  29. [29]

    Neil Giridharan, Florian Suri-Payer, Ittai Abraham, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Natacha Crooks. 2024. Autobahn: Seamless high speed BFT. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 30th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 1–23

    2024

  30. [30]

    Neil Giridharan, Florian Suri-Payer, Matthew Ding, Heidi Howard, Ittai Abraham, and Natacha Crooks. 2023. Beegees: stayin’alive in chained bft. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 233–243

    2023

  31. [31]

    2026.Performance Dashboard Overview

    Google Cloud. 2026.Performance Dashboard Overview. Retrieved March 24, 2026 from https://docs.cloud.google.com/network-intelligence-center/docs/ performance-dashboard/concepts/overview

    2026

  32. [32]

    Guy Golan Gueta, Ittai Abraham, Shelly Grossman, Dahlia Malkhi, Benny Pinkas, Michael Reiter, Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi, Orr Tamir, and Alin Tomescu. 2019. SBFT: A scalable and decentralized trust infrastructure. In2019 49th Annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN). IEEE, 568–580

    2019

  33. [33]

    Suyash Gupta, Jelle Hellings, and Mohammad Sadoghi. 2021. Rcc: Resilient concurrent consensus for high-throughput secure transaction processing. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1392– 1403

    2021

  34. [34]

    Mohammad M Jalalzai, Jianyu Niu, Chen Feng, and Fangyu Gai. 2023. Fast- hotstuff: A fast and robust bft protocol for blockchains.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing21, 4 (2023), 2478–2493

    2023

  35. [35]

    Philipp Jovanovic, Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias, Bryan Kumara, Alberto Sonnino, Pasindu Tennage, and Igor Zablotchi. 2025. Mahi-mahi: Low-latency asynchro- nous bft dag-based consensus. In2025 IEEE 45th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 549–559

    2025

  36. [36]

    Idit Keidar, Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Oded Naor, and Alexander Spiegelman

  37. [37]

    InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing

    All you need is dag. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 165–175

    2021

  38. [38]

    Idit Keidar, Oded Naor, Ouri Poupko, and Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Cordial Miners: Fast and Efficient Consensus for Every Eventuality. In37th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2023). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 26–1

    2023

  39. [39]

    Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, Mike Dahlin, Allen Clement, and Edmund Wong. 2007. Zyzzyva: speculative byzantine fault tolerance. InProceedings of twenty-first ACM SIGOPS symposium on Operating systems principles. 45–58

    2007

  40. [40]

    Hanzheng Lyu, Shaokang Xie, Jianyu Niu, Chen Feng, Yinqian Zhang, and Ivan Beschastnikh. 2025. Ladon: High-Performance Multi-BFT Consensus via Dynamic Global Ordering. InProceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems. 226–242

    2025

  41. [41]

    Dahlia Malkhi and Kartik Nayak. 2023. Hotstuff-2: Optimal two-phase responsive bft.Cryptology ePrint Archive(2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Dahlia Malkhi, Chrysoula Stathakopoulou, and Maofan Yin. 2024. Bbca-chain: Low latency, high throughput bft consensus on a dag. InInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 51–73

    2024

  43. [43]

    Oded Naor, Mathieu Baudet, Dahlia Malkhi, and Alexander Spiegelman. 2021. Cogsworth: Byzantine view synchronization. (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Nibesh Shrestha, Rohan Shrothrium, Aniket Kate, and Kartik Nayak. 2025. Sail- fish: Towards improving the latency of dag-based bft. In2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1928–1946

    2025

  45. [45]

    Nibesh Shrestha, Qianyu Yu, Aniket Kate, Giuliano Losa, Kartik Nayak, and Xuechao Wang. 2025. Optimistic, signature-free reliable broadcast and its ap- plications. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 3780–3794

    2025

  46. [46]

    Alexander Spiegelman, Balaji Arun, Rati Gelashvili, and Zekun Li. 2024. Shoal: Improving dag-bft latency and robustness. InInternational Conference on Finan- cial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 92–109

    2024

  47. [47]

    Alexander Spiegelman, Neil Giridharan, Alberto Sonnino, and Lefteris Kokoris- Kogias. 2022. Bullshark: Dag bft protocols made practical. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2705–2718

    2022

  48. [48]

    Alexander Spiegelman, Neil Giridharan, Alberto Sonnino, and Lefteris Kokoris- Kogias. 2022. Bullshark: The partially synchronous version.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05633(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Chrysoula Stathakopoulou, Tudor David, and Marko Vukolic. 2019. Mir-bft: High-throughput bft for blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.0555292 (2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Chrysoula Stathakopoulou, Matej Pavlovic, and Marko Vukolić. 2022. State machine replication scalability made simple. InProceedings of the Seventeenth European Conference on Computer Systems. 17–33

    2022

  51. [51]

    SuiScan. 2026. Suiscan: Transaction Blocks Explorer. Retrieved Accessed: 2026-01-31 from https://suiscan.xyz/mainnet/txs/tx-blocks

    2026

  52. [52]

    Giorgos Tsimos, Anastasios Kichidis, Alberto Sonnino, and Lefteris Kokoris- Kogias. 2024. Hammerhead: Leader reputation for dynamic scheduling. In2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 1377–1387

    2024

  53. [53]

    Lei Yang, Seo Jin Park, Mohammad Alizadeh, Sreeram Kannan, and David Tse

  54. [54]

    In19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22)

    {DispersedLedger}:{High-Throughput} byzantine consensus on variable bandwidth networks. In19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22). 493–512. Clownfish : Scaling DAG-based BFT Consensus via Sparse Edges

  55. [55]

    Maofan Yin, Dahlia Malkhi, Michael K Reiter, Guy Golan Gueta, and Ittai Abra- ham. 2019. HotStuff: BFT consensus with linearity and responsiveness. InProceed- ings of the 2019 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing. 347–356

    2019

  56. [56]

    Qianyu Yu, Giuliano Losa, Nibesh Shrestha, and Xuechao Wang. 2025. Angelfish: Leader, DAG, or Anywhere in Between.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15847(2025). A Additional Illustrations Figure 7 provides an illustration of the fast-vote mechanism in Section 4.1. The left side illustrates the liveness violation. Since replica 𝑝3 skips from round 𝑟 to round 𝑟+ 2a...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025