Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryConsensus2023Design paperCorpus record

Cordial Miners: Fast and Efficient Consensus for Every Eventuality

Cordial Miners. Idit Keidar, Oded Naor, Ouri Poupko and Ehud Shapiro.

Cordial Miners build a DAG with a simple cordial rule for including other miners' blocks, aiming at responsiveness without the certificate tax of the earlier DAG BFTs.

A reading of the public paper. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not a claim about any later network.

Ask whether a block is required to acknowledge the blocks it has seen. A DAG that allows ignoring honest blocks has left this design.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
1

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • arXiv:2205.09174https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09174
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    DAG protocols were either waiting on certificates or assuming more synchrony than they admitted.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    Cordial Miners build a DAG with a simple cordial rule for including other miners' blocks, aiming at responsiveness without the certificate tax of the earlier DAG BFTs.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    Inclusion of other blocks is a duty in the protocol, not a favour.

    Responsiveness means the commit follows the actual network delay rather than a fixed timeout.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    The name miner here is not proof of work.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    DAG protocols were either waiting on certificates or assuming more synchrony than they admitted.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The name miner here is not proof of work.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Must a block reference the honest blocks its author has seen?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    Cordial Miners build a DAG with a simple cordial rule for including other miners' blocks, aiming at responsiveness without the certificate tax of the earlier DAG BFTs.

    Model

    What has to hold

    Simple inclusion rules can still censor if the implementation adds a policy on top.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Must a block reference the honest blocks its author has seen?

  3. 03 Inclusion of other blocks is a duty in the protocol, not a favour.

    Observation

    What the study says

    Responsiveness means the commit follows the actual network delay rather than a fixed timeout.

    Model

    What has to hold

    Simple inclusion rules can still censor if the implementation adds a policy on top.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Must a block reference the honest blocks its author has seen?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    The name miner here is not proof of work.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The name miner here is not proof of work.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Must a block reference the honest blocks its author has seen?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Mine, in the paper's sense, by producing a block that references a cordial set of parents.
  2. 02Update the DAG.
  3. 03Commit when the cordial structure and the quorum condition say the prefix is decided.
  4. 04What is the timeout, if any?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the paper is for

    The cut

    Ask whether a block is required to acknowledge the blocks it has seen. A DAG that allows ignoring honest blocks has left this design.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  2. What happened after

    The cut

    The DAG-BFT line splits between certified, uncertified, and cordial variants. They are not interchangeable.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Cryptography · Not re-measured

    The name miner here is not proof of work.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The paper is not a public chain.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    Simple inclusion rules can still censor if the implementation adds a policy on top.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

The DAG-BFT line splits between certified, uncertified, and cordial variants. They are not interchangeable.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

DAG protocols were either waiting on certificates or assuming more synchrony than they admitted.

What the design proposes

  • Inclusion of other blocks is a duty in the protocol, not a favour.
  • Responsiveness means the commit follows the actual network delay rather than a fixed timeout.
  • The safety argument is still a quorum argument.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Mine, in the paper's sense, by producing a block that references a cordial set of parents.
  • Update the DAG.
  • Commit when the cordial structure and the quorum condition say the prefix is decided.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • The name miner here is not proof of work.
  • The paper is not a public chain.
  • Simple inclusion rules can still censor if the implementation adds a policy on top.

Why the desk still reads it

Ask whether a block is required to acknowledge the blocks it has seen. A DAG that allows ignoring honest blocks has left this design.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Cordial
A requirement to include other parties' recent blocks.
Responsive
Progress at the speed of the network rather than a fixed clock.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.