If I understand correctly, the term "consensus" in distributed consensus algorithms means that all the participants ("peers") achieve a common understanding of some data value. Different algorithms can handle different types of failures or misbehavior by some of the peers, network disconnections or partitions, lost messages, and so on. For example, PBFT has the property that any small group of peers (less than a third) cannot prevent the remaining peers from achieving a common understanding of the data value.
BUT there is nothing in these algorithms that prevents any peer from setting the data to a value that they shouldn't set it to. So "consensus" just means we all agree that the value has been set to X. It does not mean we all agree that X is the correct value.
Is that right? And, if so, is there some general research into how to enforce a set of application-specific rules about who is allowed to set the data to a given value?
For example, Bitcoin has a set of rules that ensure that only "valid" transactions are accepted by the network. So, for example, Joe can't give Fred the same bitcoin that he's already given to Mary. Joe can't give Fred a bitcoin unless someone else already gave Joe that bitcoin, or Joe earned that bitcoin by mining. And so on...
So what we have in Bitcoin are a set of application-layer rules that make sense for money, and these rules are embedded in the distributed consensus protocol used by Bitcoin (i.e. blockchain and proof-of-work and the bitcoin reference implementation).
However, what if I have a different set of rules that make sense in MY application - how can I ensure that a distributed consensus protocol (e.g. PBFT) not only ensures consensus across all peers about what the data value is, handling various failures and misbehavior by peers, and ALSO ensures that only "legal" values are set by the peers.
For example, I might have rules like: The value can only increase - nobody is allowed to decrease it. Except on Sundays, when it can be decreased, but must only be set to an even value. Except peer P can set it to whatever value they want to. And if the value=5, then peer Q is the only one who can change it. And so on... (Believe me, I have a real-world problem that requires this kind of complexity.)
Ideally, the rules would be expressed in a formal language, and the distributed consensus protocol would reject any attempts by any peers to change the data value in a way that does not conform to the rules.
Could I do this by implementing PBFT and adding in a check where each peer checks that a proposed new value is consistent with the rules, and then refusing to accept (possibly broadcasting a NACK) if the proposed change is not valid?
I'm wondering if this has already been studied. Perhaps this is the same as the concept of "consistency" in a distributed database, but I don't want to use a database replication solution, because I want eventual consistency, not strong consistency, and I want the kind of fault-tolerance that PBFT provides.