In item 13 of the discussion http://sammantics.com/blog/2016/7/27/hashgraph-consensus
"Since everyone is running the same app (which is Java code, running in a sandbox), and since everyone ends up with the same transactions in the same order, then everyone will end up with the same state. They will all agree exactly how many coins are in Y after the first 100 transactions. They will all agree on which transfers were valid and which were invalid. And so, they will all sign that state. And that signed state is the replicated, immutable ledger."
If an unknowingly dishonest node is spamming false reports of those first 100 transactions, all the while spreading gossip about the gossip, which is validated by other dishonest nodes, how would the system handle discrepancies such as this?
It’s a bit like 51% control, or multiple spoofed verifications on bitcoins.
I would think that when a network is in its infancy, overpowering the honest nodes could be achieved, particularly if a number of nodes were setup, gossiped, went offline, then came back online - giving one server with a number of VM’s the capacity of emulating thousands of nodes, by only bringing 10 or 100 online at any one time.
Is there some type of ranking, primacy, or other principle that gives some early nodes a ‘bigger vote’ to prevent this?