We study a game theoretic model where a coalition of processors might collude to bias the outcome of the protocol, where we assume that the processors always prefer any legitimate outcome over a non-legitimate one. We show that the problems of Fair Leader Election and Fair Coin Toss are equivalent, and focus on Fair Leader Election. Our main focus is on a directed asynchronous ring of $n$ processors, where we investigate the protocol proposed by Abraham et al. \cite{abraham2013distributed} and studied in Afek et al. \cite{afek2014distributed}. We show that in general the protocol is resilient only to sub-linear size coalitions. Specifically, we show that $\Omega(\sqrt{n\log n})$ randomly located processors or $\Omega(\sqrt[3]{n})$ adversarially located processors can force any outcome. We complement this by showing that the protocol is resilient to any adversarial coalition of size $O(\sqrt[4]{n})$. We propose a modification to the protocol, and show that it is resilient to every coalition of size $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$, by exhibiting both an attack and a resilience result. For every $k \geq 1$, we define a family of graphs ${\mathcal{G}}_{k}$ that can be simulated by trees where each node in the tree simulates at most $k$ processors. We show that for every graph in ${\mathcal{G}}_{k}$, there is no fair leader election protocol that is resilient to coalitions of size $k$. Our result generalizes a previous result of Abraham et al. \cite{abraham2013distributed} that states that for every graph, there is no fair leader election protocol which is resilient to coalitions of size $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$.

Thanks. We have received your report. If we find this content to be in
violation of our guidelines,
we will remove it.

Ok