Crust Test v2 (concluded)


#182

Hi @Nastypasty,

@neo has beaten me to the punch there but I’ll step into the ring as well.

As it stands there isn’t another Crust test scheduled but if that changes we won’t be shy letting everyone know about it. More to come on our thoughts after the results analysis next week…

David.


#183

I just wanted to say that you’re doing a great job keeping everyone informed, responding to questions, etc. That is all! :+1: :grinning:


#184

Just curious, is there a chance we will see tunneling through common nodes in a crust test v2.1 to get around the symmetric Nat issue?:grinning: Is it even possible currently or is it unnecessary given the number of connections achieved through other means ?


#185

Haha - nice idea! - the little it makes sense it would still be a joy to see a 100% connection rate


#186

Hmm, tunneling reminded me of the payment routing issue on the lightning network. Figuring out how to connect from here to there can get difficult.


#187

Not in the Safe Network.

Lightning network is based on a P2P destructured network so finding the route becomes extremely complicated (basically a NP Hard problem).

Safe is based on a structured P2P network, also known as a third generation network, where finding the optimal route is very simple since every node is in a specific position.


#188

Yes, SAFENetwork could actually provide a lightning network implementation, I believe. It could mean lightning transactions could happen without both peers online, with the lightning transactions stored off chain until the receiver goes online.

I’m not a lightning expert though, so I could be missing something! :slight_smile:


#189

This is just the crust layer though. Isn’t it still unstructured at the crust layer?