Good morning fiatjaf,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, August 9, 2019 10:35 AM, fiatjaf wrote:
> Ok, here's another question/probably-bad-idea: how feasible is it for these
> trampoline nodes to return the route they've calculated somehow to the
Ok, here's another question/probably-bad-idea: how feasible is it for these
trampoline nodes to return the route they've calculated somehow to the
original caller so it can cache the route and use it without trampolines
the next time? I don't know if caching routes is a good way improve routing
Thank you very much. These were very clarifying answers and ramblings.
On Monday, August 5, 2019, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning fiatjaf,
>
>> No. My question was more like why does Alice decide to build a route
that for through T1 and RT2 and not only through one trampoline router she
knows.
>
Good morning fiatjaf,
This is a good question, I'm glad you asked.
As ZmnSCPxj points out, Alice doesn't know. By not syncing the full network
graph, Alice has to accept
"being in the dark" for some decisions. She is merely hoping that RT2 *can
find a route* to Bob. Note that
it's quite easy to
Good morning fiatjaf,
I proposed before that we could institute a rule where nodes are mapped to some
virtual space, and nodes should preferably retain the part of the network graph
that connects itself to those nodes near to it in this virtual space (and
possibly prefer to channel to those
Ok, since you seem to imply each question is valuable, here's mine: how
does Alice know RT2 has a route to Bob? If she knows that, can she also
know T1 has a route to Bob? In any case, why can't she just build her small
onion with Alice -> T1 -> Bob? I would expect that to be the most common
case,
