Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 09, 2016, 11:57:18 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on February 09, 2016, 10:06:11 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 09, 2016, 08:47:17 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on February 09, 2016, 08:37:11 PM

. Bitcoin requires massive redundancy.

So ?

So Gavin's comparison of bitcoin blocks to average web pages is completely inappropriate, and Nick Szabo's comparison to MT Gox is apt. Hence, epic meta commentary.

That's not how it works.

Nodes relay information to other nodes but one node doesn't need to broadcast to the entire network!
The burden of 'massive' redundancy' you speak of is distributed across the thousands of nodes.

relax.. its people like madjules and lauda that think bitcoin needs datacentres with 6000 connections. they dont see the logic of things like the '7 degree's of separation'
EG
7 node that connect to 7 separate nodes each (meaning 7 layers each multiplying by 7 and each sprouting out by 7 (7⁷)) is over 800,000 different possible nodes connected to the same network.

it does not require each node having 5000 connections, but 6 connections minimum to form a good bitcoin network to allow for the fullnodes to receive data.. and for supernodes (and miners) they can add the main 16 mining nodes to ensure fast propagation direct to miners (to help the fastest first race) and a few other nodes to propagate out to the community. something at a minimum of 22+ connections is acceptable as being the minimum of miners and those that deem themselves important for the blockheight race of miners(rather than the later sync of archival data)