Recoverable Cuts to Make Agreement among Peers

In peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, peers make an agreement on one opinion. Agreement procedures have to be so flexible that persons can change their opinions. We discuss a flexible agreement protocol of multiple peers by taking advantage of human behaviors in a fully unstructured P2P network. There are forward, backward, mining, and observation strategies for each peer to find a value to make an agreement. In the forward strategy, a peer shows a new value to the other peers. In the backward one, a peer backs to a previous round. In order to back to the previous round, values taken after the round have to be withdrawn. In the mining one, a peer tries to find a tuple of previous values named a cut which satisfies the agreement condition. In the observation one, a peer does not take a new value. Since each peer autonomously takes one of the strategies at each round, the peers might take inconsistent strategies. For example, only if every peer takes the mining strategy, the mining strategy can be adopted. The mining strategy is inconsistent with the others. The peers have to do negotiation with each other to take consistent strategies. We discuss how peers cooperate to take consistent strategies at each round.

[1]  Rob Kling,et al.  Cooperation, coordination and control in computer-supported work , 1991, CACM.

[2]  Dale Skeen,et al.  Nonblocking commit protocols , 1981, SIGMOD '81.

[3]  Raimundo José de Araújo Macêdo,et al.  A general framework to solve agreement problems , 1999, Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems.

[4]  Paul D. Ezhilchelvan,et al.  A dependable distributed auction system: architecture and an implementation framework , 2001, Proceedings 5th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems.

[5]  David K. Y. Yau,et al.  Distributed collaborative key agreement protocols for dynamic peer groups , 2002, 10th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, 2002. Proceedings..

[6]  Jordi Sabater-Mir,et al.  Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[7]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  Consensus on transaction commit , 2004, TODS.

[8]  Tomoya Enokido,et al.  A Distributed Coordination Protocol for a Heterogeneous Group of Peer Processes , 2007, 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA '07).

[9]  Tomoya Enokido,et al.  Making an Agreement in an Order-Heterogeneous Group by using a Distributed Coordination Protocol , 2007, 2007 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICPPW 2007).

[10]  Vanessa Teague,et al.  A Secure Group Agreement (SGA) Protocol for Peer-to-Peer Applications , 2007, 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07).

[11]  Alberto Montresor,et al.  A robust protocol for building superpeer overlay topologies , 2004, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2004. Proceedings..

[12]  Julita Vassileva,et al.  TRIBLER: a social‐based peer‐to‐peer system , 2008, IPTPS.

[13]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Byzantine Generals Problem , 1982, TOPL.

[14]  Makoto Takizawa,et al.  M-ary Commitment Protocol with Partially Ordered Domain , 1997, DEXA.

[15]  Tomoya Enokido,et al.  Checkpointing in a Distributed Coordination Protocol for Multiple Peer Processes , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems.