Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM¯<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=661.msg7087#msg7087">Quote from: omegadraconis on August 02, 2010, 07:32:54 PM</a></div><div class="quote">I think the idea of "super nodes" or hubs will help limit the possibility of a split. The more connected the network is the less the possibility of a split. I know not everyone can run a node that supports 7000+ connections but, if there were some highly connected super nodes running 1000 or so connections and these nodes could be inter-networked with each other this would allow for a stronger connection. Even if a node is at a connection limit and doesn't connect to the super node, it would be probable that one of the other nodes would be connected to a super node. The down side to running a super node is you spend more cpu time and bandwidth making connections and less cpu time generating. &nbsp;<br/></div><br/>This is interesting to me. What is most robust?<br/><br/>1000 nodes all with 9 connections<br/><br/>1000 nodes with 8 connections and one with 1000 connections<br/><br/>1000 nodes with 8 connections and ten with 100 connections<br/><br/>If you only connect with nodes 'near' your node then having only a few seems like a problem. If it's totally distributed then I think having the connections distributed would be better, but I really don't know.<br/><br/>Another thing to consider is how huge the profit opportunity will be if the network starts to get fractured. Everyone will want their transactions to get put in the next block for sure before an actual split and the fee will get bid up, this will give nodes incentive to make sure they can stay connected to those at risk and collect their fees. And thereby the network will not get split. I mean if a government ties down traffic they might actually run the nodes themselves for profit or some corrupt official who knows how to get away with it (n/m, no corruption in governments).</div> text/html