Matthew Toseland wrote:
> "Small world" is primarily a property of the connection topology - the
> network, stripped of all location information. Swapping takes the network
> and assigns locations so that it is routable.
>
I was kinda getting there before and dbkr's post pretty much got me
there. I do like how well it's put here though. I guess this leads me
to the question of if Freenet-driven opennet will be "small world" and
if so, can refbot.py borrow some/all of the same algorithm to get us to
some closer approximation than refbot.py has been giving us so far?
Unfortunately, I've gotten the impression that hobx isn't always luring
on these lists in "real-time" to answer such questions. :)
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:08:10PM -0600, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to resolve something in my mind about the small world model
>> and how it relates to Freenet. My understanding has been that the
>> relation was in Freenet node location distances and my assumption was
>> that the swapping algorithm was intended to optimized the "small world
>> model" of an arbitrary set of connections such that, in my mind, it
>> would theoretically settle on all nodes having a small world
>> distribution of peers: increasing numbers of peers as shorter distances
>> from a given node.
>>
>> Toad has informed me on IRC a bit ago that the swapping algorithm does
>> not make arbitrary interconnections achieve "small world", which leaves
>> me with these questions:
>>
>> Is there more than one metric for which we are trying to achieve "small
>> world"? If so, could that be confusing things for others as well?
>>
>> Can a given node and a list of potential peers be used to create a small
>> world model, at least from the perspective of the given node? I assume
>> this is somehow possible as I understand it that opennet will be doing this,
>>
>> Some of you may already know where I'm likely going with this. What can
>> opennet built into fred do that a program like refbot.py couldn't do?
>> Could refbot.py potentially say, add 50 peers and then remove (in an
>> orderly fashion) all but 15 based on a small world location/distance
>> distribution to achieve a small world model if say, all/most nodes were
>> using this same algorithm?
>>
