Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM†<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2859#msg2859">Quote from: TopSoil on July 14, 2010, 03:59:18 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Why? E-Mail and Jabber work the same way. Everyone can run their own server, and many do, but most users prefer to use someone else's server(s).</div>Sure it can work that way but is that the ideal? Doesn't that make the network less robust and more vulnerable to attacks and manipulation?</div><br/>Not really. If you're worried, you can always run your very own server. <br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">What happens if some attackers start running a cluster of supernodes?</div><br/>Nothing. Unless you happen to use one of those supernodes, which you don't have to, because you can run your own supernode. Or use a trusted one, much like people trust Google with their E-Mail.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">The main point is why rely on this more vulnerable architecture when you don't have to? It isn't easier to implement.</div><br/>It isn't easier to implement? I'd like to see some proof here. <br/><br/>Counterexample: The <a href="http://www.epostmail.org/">totally distributed E-Mail system</a> developed at Rice University is a hell of a lot more complex than running a (network of) semi-centralized mail server(s).<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">spaceshaker: yes I agree there will have to be nodes that act as proxies for mobile devices. <br/></div><br/>Um. That's exactly what a supernode server would do.</div> text/html