On Wednesday 06 February 2008 09:32, Michael Rogers wrote: > On Feb 5 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> I was under the impression that the random walks for swapping were long > >> enough to reach any node with roughly equal probability - I believe that > >> was Oskar's intention. If the random walks aren't escaping from local > >> clusters then we'll never be able to smooth out the clusters... > > > > Yes and no - in the case of poorly connected networks, the sheer capacity > > of the limited connections between the two networks produces a bias, > > doesn't it? > > Good point - so even if there's no explicit swap limit it might be hard for > locations to move between clusters... > > Here's an updated simulation with looping random walks and swap limits. The > last column of the output shows the fraction of swaps accepted - if you > multiply the swap limit by 4, all swaps are accepted so there's effectively > no limit. > > The swap limit does prevent the subnets from completely segragating (even > without randomly resetting the locations), but there still are many columns > with 10-20% or 80-90% red nodes.
"Red" nodes? > > Is this good or bad? It limits the impact of Sybil attacks, but on the > other hand it suggests that some "natural" topologies might never become > properly routable... > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080206/1986e3ed/attachment.pgp>
