Good morning ZmnSCPxj, thanks for the response.
> I would be hesitant to divide the world in such manner.
> I understand that in typical computer science, splitting your objects up into
> smaller parts is a long-accepted method of doing things.
> However, when it comes to finances and
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
I'll try to clarify my proposal further, but also have some questions about
> Now, it seems to me what you propose, is to have octrees contain octrees, and
> so on.
There's one global tree, which is the same for all users. Every node in the
tree has a
Hi ZmnSCPxj & René.
One way you could have both determinism and encourage a diverse distribution of
network maps is to treat it as a spatial indexing problem, where the space we
use is the lexicographical space of the node ids (or hashes of), borrowing some
similarities from DHTs.
> (I'm seeking a clever way that Bob can assign them and trivially tell
> which ID is assigned to which peer, but I can't figure it out, so I
> guess Bob keeps a mapping and restricts each peer to 256 live scids?).
Here's a potential way for Alice and Bob to agree a set of 256 scids