9 Oct
2017
9 Oct
'17
9 a.m.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Could depend on the complexity involved in ensuring sufficient presence of filled links in the network for the paths such that any odds of "at two points" visibility, implausibility, or other degenerate cases, never occur. Seems a fairly high bar. Might be simpler to drop compatibility for non fill mode participants, or not. More research, whether funded or not, is needed there.