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.
If for examp
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 political
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
I'll try to clarify my proposal further, but also have some questions about
yours.
---
> 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 bucket
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> Let me clarify: When you say "node" here, do you mean Lightning Network node?
> Or do you mean instead an in-memory node?
Neither. I meant a node in a tree. I tried to use the term bucket to make the
distinction between this and Lightning node.
The tree is not strictly in-memory.
> (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?).
Hi Rusty.
Here's a potential way for Alice and Bob to agree a set of 256 scids wit