On 4/21/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 06:23:54PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On 4/15/06, Lars Juel Nielsen <lars.j.nielsen at gmail.com> wrote: > > > That sounds like a quite bad idea if the small world theory and our > > > routing algorithm works. > > > At least according to my understanding of it. > > > > The alternative is that I drastically reduce the number of peerings I > > have to improve the chances that my close-friends are able to stay > > connected. ... but then I become part of a small subgraph myself and > > become more likely a victim of partitioning. > > What is the implicit problem here? > > Please explain your complaint, not just your proposed solution.
Did you miss my initial post? I know I'm long winded, but the first three paragraphs explain the problem. I have many peers. One is a close friend who trusts me and cares about his anonymity. He is only connected to freenet via me and perhaps one other node. My node gets busy with its other peers, and my friend ends up backed off and partitioned from freenet. I can reduce my peers, but then the chances of me becoming partitioned are increased.
