From FMS: Re: maxpeers setting
adilson_lanpo@8AEGotJKXJ4ABJy1gKjls4SrrzpshQNoEMAbu0IFA94 wrote: > On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:30:04 -0000 > toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI wrote: > >> adilson_lanpo@8AEGotJKXJ4ABJy1gKjls4SrrzpshQNoEMAbu0IFA94 wrote: >> >> > Looking at the following in the freenet statistics page. >> > >> > opennetSizeEstimateSession: 4201 nodes >> > opennetSizeEstimate24h: 1657 nodes >> > opennetSizeEstimate48h: 2669 nodes >> > nodeUptimeSession: 4d10h >> > >> > Along with the latest monthly openpeers statistics which gives over >> > twenty thousand IPv4 addresses and eleven thousand openpeers. >> > >> > This suggests that maxpeers could be somewhat above the current >> > value of 40 without freenet becoming too centralized, 60 should be >> > relatively safe while also providing increased speed to those with >> > high bandwidth limits. >> > >> > But what we'd really need to know is just how centralized is too >> > centralized as well as exactly what problems we'd get from a network >> > that is too centralized? >> >> Right, that's the basic problem. What should the criterion be? A >> simple maximum percentage of the network? Or ... ??? > > It'd depend on exactly what problems are caused by being too > centralized as well as how much we care about them compared to > download speed. > > I can imagine problems occurring if a well connected node were to > vanish especially for those with low bandwidth limits (and hence few > peers) and I can also imagine that someone attacking freenet may > want to increase maxpeers but can't come up with anything else. Basically the worry is that the network could become over-reliant on a moderate number of nodes with lots of connections each. I.e. it becomes a "scale free" network, where all requests are routed through a centralised cabal of nodes, rather than a more homogenous "small world" network. The problem with such a situation is if you take out the "big" nodes, the rest of the network will be severely damaged and take some time to adapt. However, there are a lot of problems with opennet, so maybe this is less of an issue than we have assumed? I don't know how to quantify this. Arguably you can get a cabal just by fast (high capacity) nodes linking to other fast (high capacity) nodes, without violating the peer limits. To some degree this happens automatically on opennet (as it's a bit meritocratic), but the fact that fast nodes still see relatively low transfer rates shows it doesn't happen *that much*. So maybe there's no problem with raising the limit to say 100 peers on opennet. On darknet somebody with a lot of connections might well have 100 peers, especially if we have FOAF links. Opennet is vulnerable with or without high peer limits, and the main worries with centralisation are somewhat independent of peer limits. We could limit "aristocracy" by e.g. limiting connections not by number but by capacity. I.e. you can have 20 high capacity peers or 40 low capacity peers. This is a bit hand-wavy at this point...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
