adilson_lanpo@8AEGotJKXJ4ABJy1gKjls4SrrzpshQNoEMAbu0IFA94 wrote: > On Sun, 05 May 2013 12:59:33 -0000 > toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI wrote: > >> adilson_lanpo@8AEGotJKXJ4ABJy1gKjls4SrrzpshQNoEMAbu0IFA94 wrote: >> >> 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. > > I thought all scale-free networks were small-world. > >> 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. > > I guess it'd depend on how bad that would affect the rest of the > network, would it just slow things down for a bit? Could we be looking > at a netsplit or some routing screwup?
Yeah, it might need a major reconfiguration? On the other hand, node locations *never* change on opennet, so how bad can it be? > > I'd expect that the big nodes would be more likely to be running 24/7 so > they'd probably be less likely than average to go down. > > So how many of them could we afford to lose at once? I doubt we'd lose > all of them unless someone were DOSing high bandwidth opennet nodes but > anyone who could do that could probably hurt us in other ways. Right. It isn't possible to secure opennet to the point where this is a more interesting attack than the other options. > >> 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*. > > If the majority of nodes are slow then it would happen rarely. It's a theory that's bounced around for years. Certainly opennet is somewhat meritocratic: Newbie nodes tend to be connected to other poorly connected nodes, even when they have lots of them. > >> 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... > > Does a node know what bandwidth limit has been set by its peers? > > But even if you do that I suspect you wouldn't actually reduce > centralization, just have something slower than if you just used the > low capacity peers number on its own. Right, we can look at capacity, but you could still get well connected nodes connecting to well connected nodes. And maybe that's not a bad thing. Thoughts?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
