mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-10-30 18:15:21 +00:00
zeekay
f4ee7a0525
Bylines, paper authorship, correspondence addresses and the founder blurb under each post named an individual. They name the organisation that published the work instead: the brand on posts and pages, the research byline on papers, and research@ in place of a personal address. Both are what these repositories already used elsewhere — nothing new was coined. Co-authors are untouched. Where a paper named someone else alongside, they stay named; only the one byline changed. Bibliography entries, running heads, PDF metadata and affiliations move with it, so a citation still resolves to whoever the cited paper names. Sample and fixture data uses the placeholder name these tests already use elsewhere, so no assertion changed meaning.
83 lines
3.4 KiB
TeX
83 lines
3.4 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
|
|
\usepackage{../shared/luxcover}
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, graphicx, hyperref, booktabs, multirow, xcolor}
|
|
\usepackage{enumitem}
|
|
\usepackage{pgfplots}
|
|
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.18}
|
|
\usepackage{subcaption}
|
|
\usepackage{algorithm}
|
|
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
|
|
\usepackage{siunitx}
|
|
|
|
\sisetup{group-separator={,}}
|
|
|
|
\definecolor{luxblue}{HTML}{2563EB}
|
|
\definecolor{luxpurple}{HTML}{7C3AED}
|
|
\definecolor{cosgray}{HTML}{6B7280}
|
|
\definecolor{hotred}{HTML}{DC2626}
|
|
\definecolor{narworange}{HTML}{EA580C}
|
|
\definecolor{ethblue}{HTML}{627EEA}
|
|
\definecolor{solgreen}{HTML}{14F195}
|
|
\definecolor{avaxred}{HTML}{E84142}
|
|
|
|
\title{Quasar Consensus: A Comparative Benchmark Study\\of Post-Quantum Byzantine Fault Tolerance}
|
|
\author{
|
|
Lux Research\thanks{Corresponding author: [email protected]}\\
|
|
\textit{Lux Industries, Inc.}\\
|
|
\texttt{[email protected]}
|
|
}
|
|
\date{2025}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\luxcoverpage
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
We present a comprehensive benchmark evaluation of Quasar, the quantum-secure consensus
|
|
protocol powering Lux Network, against six production blockchain consensus systems:
|
|
Tendermint/CometBFT (Cosmos), HotStuff/LibraBFT (Meta/Aptos), Narwhal+Tusk (Sui),
|
|
Ethereum PoS (Casper FFG + LMD GHOST), Solana (Tower BFT + PoH), and the Snow
|
|
metastable-sampling family (prior art for probabilistic-finality protocols). Measurements span eight categories: finality time, transaction
|
|
throughput, validator scalability, message complexity, post-quantum signature overhead,
|
|
dual-certificate finality cost, network partition recovery, and geographic distribution
|
|
effects. With CPU BLS aggregation, Quasar achieves 200\,ms median finality across
|
|
three geographically distributed datacenters. With GPU-accelerated BLS (Metal/CUDA),
|
|
single-datacenter finality reaches \textbf{10\,ms}. At Lux's 1\,B gas block limit
|
|
(\num{47619} txs/block at 21{,}000 gas/tx) a full block clears in $\sim$10\,ms of
|
|
opcode-execution time---a \num{4761904}\,TPS execution-only upper bound (opcode dispatch),
|
|
\emph{not} an end-to-end finality figure; finality is bound by signature recovery,
|
|
settlement conflict-detection, and BLS/PQ finality.
|
|
CPU BLS provides a 100\,ms fallback on commodity hardware.
|
|
At 100 validators, consensus-layer throughput reaches \num{10400}\,TPS with linear
|
|
O($n$) message complexity and graceful degradation under Byzantine conditions---without
|
|
sacrificing quantum resistance. All benchmarks were conducted on identical hardware
|
|
across three geographically distributed datacenters.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
\tableofcontents
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%% ============================================================================
|
|
|
|
\input{sections/01-introduction}
|
|
\input{sections/02-experimental-setup}
|
|
\input{sections/03-benchmark-1-finality-time}
|
|
\input{sections/04-benchmark-2-throughput}
|
|
\input{sections/05-benchmark-3-validator-scalability}
|
|
\input{sections/06-benchmark-4-message-complexity}
|
|
\input{sections/07-benchmark-5-post-quantum-readiness}
|
|
\input{sections/08-benchmark-6-dual-certificate-finality}
|
|
\input{sections/09-benchmark-7-network-partition-recovery}
|
|
\input{sections/10-benchmark-8-geographic-distribution}
|
|
\input{sections/11-benchmark-9-pipelined-consensus}
|
|
\input{sections/12-composite-scoring}
|
|
\input{sections/13-discussion}
|
|
\input{sections/14-related-work}
|
|
\input{sections/15-literature-backed-comparison}
|
|
\input{sections/16-raw-data-tables}
|
|
\input{sections/17-quasar-parameter-sensitivity}
|
|
\input{sections/18-reproducibility}
|
|
\input{sections/99-conclusion}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|