Synchronous cross-shard transactions with consolidated concurrency control and consensus (or how I rediscovered Chain Fibers)

I’d like to argue against a widespread perception that under the initial sharding protocol, the only way to do cross-shard transactions will be with asynchronous messages (i.e. contract locking/yanking, and so on). I do agree that if we expect the least amount of innovation from protocol engineers, then asynchronous transactions are what we’ll get (asynchronous transactions are the solution if protocol engineers shirk it off and leave it as a problem to be solved by users, contract authors and dapp devs). But it would be a shame to accept a “worse is better” fate. Instead, I want to highlight some insight why solving the problem at the protocol layer, enabling synchronous cross-shard transactions that would work with no change to the current DX/UX (so that transactions which touch multiple contracts would continue to work for dapp devs on Ethereum 2.0 as they do now on Ethereum 1.0), should actually be easier than is commonly perceived.

This insight is not new, I have shared it before with a few people offline (you know who you are :wink: ) as early as the week before Devcon2. And even then it was arguably not novel / fairly obvious. I’ve since seen some trickles of it come through in posts here and there. First, in the Sharding FAQ:

How would synchronous cross-shard messages work? […] one fairly simple approach can be described as follows:

  • A transaction may specify a set of shards that it can operate in
  • In order for the transaction to be effective, it must be included at the same block height in all of these shards.
  • Transactions within a block must be put in order of their hash (this ensures a canonical order of execution)

Then later, on the forum:

We know that with merge blocks and clever use of fork choice rules 47, we can have a sharded chain where a block on one shard is atomic with a block on another shard; that is, either both blocks are part of the final chain or neither are, and within that block there can be transactions that make synchronous calls between the two shards (which are useful for, among other things, solving train-and-hotel problems 25). […]
It is also worth noting that merged state execution technically does not require merge blocks. Instead, one can simply define a deterministic function that assigns shard IDs into pairs at each block number (eg. if we want to cycle evenly, and there are k shards and k is prime, then at block number N shards, shuffle shard IDs with i → (i * N) % k and then merge-execute blocks 1 and 2, 3 and 4, etc using post-shuffling IDs). Merge-executing two blocks would simply mean that a transaction starting on one block is capable of reading and writing state on the other block.

And again, positioned favorably even:

I think the best solutions to these problems are those solutions that recognize that shards are virtual galaxies, and not physical sets of computers, and so the nodes executing two shards can, eg. with stateless client witness protocols, temporarily be merged for one block.

Despite the occasional hint that synchronous cross-shard transactions might be quite practical/maybe-not-too-difficult, they are still under-appreciated as a killer feature of sharding (perhaps because of a confused oversimplification that asynchronicity == parallelism and parallelism == good. more on that later).

Even among the ewasm team (where most of my contributions are directed lately), as we’ve begun shifting our focus from an ewasm 1.0 prototype testnet to an ewasm 2.0 execution engine for shards, any mention of “sharding” is quickly followed by questions about “asynchronous calls”, much to my dismay. I promised a write-up pushing back against the insidious complexity of asynchronous calls, which if allowed to accumulate would form an evil asynchronous temple of doom (filled with footguns), and can postpone it no longer.

Transactions: myths, surprises and opportunities

The insight I want to highlight starts with a talk by Martin Kleppmann about transactions. In particular, the paragraph beginning around 29m34s:

If you want serializable transactions across multiple services, you would have to run some kind of atomic commit protocol. These are distributed systems protocols, which make sure that if you’ve got various different parties who are all participating in a transaction (various different services), either all of them commit or none of them commit. Protocols such as two-phase commit, three-phase commit, transaction managers, etc., they implement this kind of thing. However, as we saw earlier, the whole idea of serializability is that transactions appear as if they were in a total serial order. You can execute literally in serial order or not, but that order is definitely defined, so whenever two transactions conflict, somebody has to decide which of the two came first. From a distributed systems point of view, this makes it effectively an atomic broadcast problem. That is, the problem of getting a bunch of messages to different nodes in exactly the same order. But the issue with atomic broadcast is that, from a theoretical and also practical perspective, it’s actually equivalent to consensus.

Here “services” are shards, and “protocols such as two-phase commit” are the contract locking/yanking ideas for achieving asynchronous cross-shard transactions (essentially the same as cross-chain atomic swaps, or “cross-chain relays/bridges”, or two-way pegs with SPV proofs, etc.). Kleppmann was speaking about “microservices” and how you should try to avoid doing transactions across microservices if at all possible, because if you want to do them right then you’ll end up implementing some protocol that’s equivalent to a consensus protocol. Well, in our case we can’t avoid doing global transactions (across services), because its the only way to prevent double-spends. But also in our case, we’re already doing consensus. That means we already have a total order for transactions. So there’s no need for two-phase commit protocols between contracts on different shards.

Consolidating concurrency control and consensus

This same insight was articulated in a 2016 paper, the Janus paper (Consolidating Concurrency Control and Consensus for Commits under Conflicts):

Conventional fault-tolerant distributed transactions layer a traditional concurrency control protocol on top of the Paxos consensus protocol. This approach provides scalability, availability, and strong consistency. When used for wide-area storage, however, this approach incurs cross-data-center coordination twice, in serial: once for concurrency control, and then once for consensus. In this paper, we make the key observation that the coordination required for concurrency control and consensus is highly similar. Specifically, each tries to ensure the serialization graph of transactions is acyclic. We exploit this insight in the design of Janus, a unified concurrency control and consensus protocol.

[…] the layering approach incurs cross-data-center coordination twice, in serial: once by the concurrency control protocol to ensure transaction consistency (strict serializability [34, 45]), and another time by the consensus protocol to ensure replica consistency (linearizability [14]). Such double coordination is not necessary and can be eliminated by consolidating concurrency control and consensus into a unified protocol.

The key insight of Janus is to realize that strict serializability for transaction consistency and linearizability for replication consistency can both be mapped to the same underlying abstraction. In particular, both require the execution history of transactions be equivalent to some linear total order.

Applied to sharding, the insight is that the master chain (consensus) provides a total order over “shard blocks”. This total order of shard blocks means we get an implicit total order of cross-shard transactions (concurrency control), for free. By taking advantage of the total order determined by consensus to coordinate cross-shard transactions in the protocol layer, we don’t need to do locking/yanking in the contract layer. In other words, coordinating cross-shard transactions through asynchronous calls is redundant “double coordination” that can be eliminated.

Chain of chains, or sharded chain?

Contract locking/yanking, where a contract on one shard communicates with a contract on another shard by verifying tx receipts from the other shard, is just another form of two-phase commit. The sharding protocol might simplify this receipt verification, making it easier to verify receipts from a shard versus verifying receipts from a completely different blockchain. In order to verify receipts from a completely different blockchain, the contract itself also needs to process and verify the headers of the other chain (this is how Peace Relay works, for example). In general, this is the direction taken by Interledger, Cosmos, Polkadot, and probably other “chain of chains” aspirants.

Because two different blockchains have their own consensus processes, each determining the order of their own chain’s blocks and not the other’s, two-phase commit protocols like cross-chain atomic swaps are necessary. But if “shard chains” are under one master consensus process that determines the order of all shard blocks, then two-phase commit between shards is not necessary. The order over shard blocks implicitly coordinates the concurrency of all cross-shard transactions, providing synchrony for free (again, coordination through locking/yanking would be needless “double-coordination”).

Chain Fibers, with delayed execution

Note that efficiently coordinating cross-shard transactions requires knowing ahead of time which shards each transaction may access. In the Janus paper, this access list is called the “dependency list”.

The basic idea was already present in Chain Fibers. In Chain Fibers, a total order of cross-shard transactions is forced by forming shard blocks over “non-overlapping” sets of fibers (X-fiber blocks), ensuring that no cross-shard transactions conflict. You could allow X-fiber blocks with overlapping sets, and resolve conflicts by some total canonical order determined by the master chain, but then there’s a worry that the overhead of data communication (as opposed to coordination for concurrency control) between different fiber sets would defeat the goal of processing fiber blocks in parallel.

A note about parallelization: if the goal of scaling is merely to process more token transfers, then we don’t need synchronous cross-shard calls. Each shard can be isolated and each token contract can live on a different shard. But for other use cases, like lotteries, or decentralized exchange, or cryptokitties, and so on, all the locking/yanking between different shards would cause a parallel slowdown. For these other use cases, the goal of sharding is to partition the state but preserve the global transaction boundary (i.e. to enable synchronous cross-shard transactions, as the transaction load is inherently serial and cannot be parallelized).

Back to cross-shard data communication: iterate on Chain Fibers by de-coupling consensus from state execution. Do a consensus game only on data availability and the order of shard blocks (i.e. “data blobs”), and do state execution as a separate delayed process. Then, it seems feasible to allow shard blocks with overlapping access lists and do “merged execution”, as long as the data coordination that happens during merged execution can keep up with the rate at which shard blocks arrive. If the clients are stateless then I’d say it can, because the data needed is already being propagated in the form of merkle proof “witnesses” included in transactions.

It is this merged execution which allows for synchronous cross-shard transactions, i.e. cross-shard transactions using the same synchronous CALLs of Ethereum 1.0 that we know and love (yes, there are some counter-intuitive aspects of EVM 1.0 CALLs that we don’t love, such as contract re-entry. But these issues are orthogonal to synchrony versus asynchrony; there are other ways to fix them without throwing out synchrony and just wholesale drinking the async kool-aid, which I’m afraid will induce a trip that is not so great. Cue Kleppmann: “Every sufficiently large deployment of [asynchronous shards] contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of transactions.”).


Synchronous communications are in general bad for distributed systems. They lead to tight coupling and make things hard to run in parallel.

I already addressed this, ctrl+f “confused oversimplification” and “parallelization”. But I’ll expand a bit.

Distributed systems are in general bad for atomic transaction workloads. The additional overhead of 2-phase commits (locking/yanking) results in a parallel slowdown. Atomic transactions are inherently non-parallelizable; they require synchronous communication, whether handled by the protocol (for all contracts) or by each contract implementing locks through async messaging (locking/yanking).

If the workload is parallelizable, i.e. you are not doing things like booking a train-and-hotel or decentralized exchange or detecting double-spends, then you don’t need atomic transactions and you don’t need consensus. You can instead use a much more scalable distributed system like a CRDT (where the order of reads/writes doesn’t matter) or RAMP, rather than a consensus protocol.

1 Like

Well almost everything that works in real life is asynchronous. A PC bus is asynchronous. Internet is asynchronous. Linux kernel is asynchronous. A processor is asynchronous. SocIal networks are asyncronous. People talk to each other asynchronously.

Arguably the only two useful synchronous things in the world are sex
and Ethereum Smart Contracts :joy::joy::joy:


Thanks for this optimistic (and contrarian?) post Casey. :slight_smile: I’m trying to understand the details of the protocol you are suggesting. To simplify things, let’s assume there are only two shards A and B and that the only synchronous cross-shard transactions are the transfer of ETH. Can you specify precisely how synchronous transfers of ETH between shards A and B would work?

synchronous cross-shard transactions that would work with no change to the current DX/UX

If feasible that would be awesome. I just wanted to point out that the scheme from the sharding FAQ does have changes to the current DX/UX:

  • Single-message transactions are now two-message transactions. Specifically, a transaction must appear in shards A and B. This means transaction fees must be paid in two places.
  • The two messages must be coordinated in time. Specifically, the two messages must be included at the same block height. This makes transactions more brittle and likely to fail.
  • Proposers cannot choose the full ordering of transactions. Specifically, transactions must be ordered by their hash.

the master chain (consensus) provides a total order over “shard blocks”. This total order of shard blocks means we get an implicit total order of cross-shard transactions (concurrency control), for free.

In sharding the process of totally ordering blocks across shards (called “crosslinking”) is quite a bit slower than the growth of individual shards. The crosslink candidates are shard blocks at epoch boundaries, i.e. they occur every 128 periods (~10 minutes) in the best case.

What happens to the “unconfirmed” cross-shard transactions that occur after the last crosslink? Because the crosslinking process hasn’t run its course, such transactions may be in a quantum-like superposition until the next crosslink collapses the state. Could these “quantum” transactions negatively affect “classical” transactions somehow?

and do state execution as a separate delayed process

To reiterate the above point in a different language, notice that by “delayed execution” we generally mean that knowledge of the state is delayed for light-clients only, i.e. that full nodes can have immediate knowledge of the state. With cross-shard transactions where the inter-shard consensus game lags behind the intra-shard consensus game, does this mean that execution is also delayed for full nodes?


Seems reasonable and worth further R&D!

The main concern I have with this kind of approach is concrete efficiency. First of all, if implemented naively, allowing arbitrary cross-shard synchronous transactions, even with delayed execution, leads to the entire system slowing down to a rate not faster than a single chain system. To see why, consider a case where transactions with the following shard pairs are submitted and included at the same block height: (1, 99), (2, 99), (3, 99) … (98, 99).

How does one evaluate the state transition function of shard 83? Well, one can start off by evaluating the transactions up until some height. Then, one gets to the transaction (83, 99). However, the execution of this transaction also depends on the pre-state of shard 99, which depends on transactions (1, 99) … (82, 99). Hence, nodes processing execution on that shard also needs to execute those 82 transactions. The result is that everyone on every shard needs to process on average half of shard 99. If we suppose that similar sequences (1, x) … (99, x) exist for all other x, then everyone needs to process most of the content of every shard. Scalability is lost.

One solution is to split up shards into pairs every block height, and keep shuffling these pairs. However, this means that a synchronous transaction would on average need to wait 50 blocks to get included (and extending the scheme to larger sets would mean that a cross-3-shard transaction would need to wait ~5000 blocks, etc).

The one solution I can think of is to require cross-shard synchronous transactions to specify an access list, and require the access lists of every cross-shard tx in the same shard to be disjoint. Intra-shard txs would be executed after the cross-shard txs. This would allow an execution process where executing any block on any shard requires knowing the state roots of the previous block on all shards, and it would involve fetching the appropriate Merkle proofs for cross-shard data, executing all of the cross-shard transactions, then executing the intra-shard transactions. This is workable, though it does run into the issue that it is vulnerable to reorgs of any shard, and it does contradict the preference I have heard some developers expressing for not separating state execution and block consensus.


That all sounds reasonable, I guess you just have to weigh up the pros and cons of each approach, which could be done more quantitatively with experimental results. Note that as pointed out above, scalability of cross shard transactions would also be affected with a locking scheme (once locked nothing else can read/write the locked data). Also noting reorgs could be hidden with transparent sharding.

I was just reading this post again, and this caught my eye:

Wouldn’t cross-shard txs be ubiquitous even in this case? Yes, a token contract will be on a specific shard (e.g. shard 1), but EOAs - token owners will most probably be scattered across all shards (shards 1-1024), which means we’ll have cross-shard txs for majority of token transfers?

Am I getting this right?

1 Like