On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >The network can't split. 50% isn't enough. You'd need a supermajority, > >as I have explained - AT EACH NODE. It's not a global vote. Each node > >would need 2/3rds of its connections to vote, and would need them > >(including a biased score from the first layer of indirectly connected > >nodes) to vote yes at say 2/3rds (supermajority depends on sanctions to > >be taken, but 2/3rds sounds reasonable to trace the author). We would > >probably have a large number of blocks to trace, so we could to some > >extent work around uncooperative bits of the network, but the objective > >is to find the node that posted the data, or the sub-network that it is > >part of. We can then either warn them, or sever connections with them > >(either all connections or premix connections). > > > > > I was assuming that there would be enough vairation in local oppinion > given that the groups are connected by aquantinces that there would be > local pockets of variation of oppinion. However what I was getting at, > was could go through a real usecase that takes into account all the > varrious possible roles in this scheme?
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean... you suggesting a detailed hypothetical? -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
