Matthew Toseland wrote: > Swapping creates this problem. Or does it? Could you perhaps do some > simulations of two networks of different sizes weakly linked and show whether > they get independant location spaces, or whether swapping tries to put one of > them within the global keyspace for the other?
Here's a quick simulation that shows that two weakly-connected subnets move into separate regions of the key space. Each subnet has an ideal Kleinberg topology and starts out uniformly distributed across the whole key space, and there are also a few random links between the subnets - this is meant to represent what would happen if you created a few links between two mature networks, or between a real network and a Sybil network. I couldn't be bothered to do a nice GUI so the output is just a series of histograms: on each line the key space is divided into 20 regions, and each column shows the number of nodes from the first subnet in that region. Initially there are roughly 50 nodes in each region, but swapping causes the subnets to segregate so that eventually most regions are almost exclusively occupied by one subnet or the other. It's kind of interesting to compare this with "white flight" in sociology... Cheers, Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Simulation.java Type: text/x-java Size: 3194 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080205/fc0a238a/attachment.java>
