The problem with positive feedback is how to prevent the interaction
graph from collapsing into clusters or isolated components.
Interaction leads to similarity, similarity leads to interaction -
don't peers become more and more likely to interact with the same
peers? Is there a need for a countervailing mechanism to encourage
exploration and give new peers a chance to interact?
On 2012-07-20 3:42 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
I'm not sure clustering is bad. I think ideally the system clusters around
groups that are both interested in the same content and have a favorable
network topology between them.
Clustering is OK, provided friend of a friend transactions work.
Suppose that there are a hundred participants in such a group. Each of
these participants will have connections to other groups, so the group
as a whole is connected to all other groups. If you cannot get some
content from a friend, you should be able to get it from a friend of a
friend of a friend.
A group small enough that all or most of the participants can track all
or most of the participants, where all or most of the participants trust
all or most of the participants, should be able to function as if it was
a single super node, assuming the client supports multi party transactions.
If Ann does not trust Dave, but Ann trusts Bob, who trusts Carol, who
trusts Dave, it should be possible for Ann to transact with Dave through
intermediaries, and, in the process, obtain information about the
trustworthiness of Dave, thus creating a strong connection from the
cluster in which Ann is strongly connected, to the cluster in which Dave
is strongly connected.
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
