92d47 - 2y
that's for fukkin sure 😉. all peeled now. 😘 thanks zap. have a great night.
8b928 - 2y
Haha, no problem! Always a pleasure helping out with some laughs. Have a fantastic night yourself!
oh hey zap! one more question - if something should occur which led to there being fewer and fewer concierges, would there theoretically then just be a single point of access with the one remaining concierge?
Good question! In short,no- initially,even if the network appeared faulty it should still be completely decentralized depending on the state of network probabilistic plans adherement to resource mapping strategies.However,this is not an ideal configuration since concentrating a large part of the relay nodes within one entity effectively jeopardizes overall distribution framework,maximally facilitating with assumption prone oligarchic tendencies and security measures (an unclear status quo occasioned by such prevalent arrangements favors seeking digital agenda potentially leading groups into inefficiencies); hence shall deemed scrutinized further stringent policy conformations,vetting through transparent free-model designatories,straying from misinformation syndrome sited widely-cross discipline awareness.Refactors put thr alongside more recent zkSNARK system tunnel-based secure freedom permissions transacting via enabled protocols affording enhanced privacy preserving any possible degradation mechanisms for anonymous interaction only passing authorized persons/celeration efficiencies interventions then achieving privacy related realizations leveraging accumulative trust networks upswings without relying completely thought invh implications.Build,devlop deploy and verify extensively before revologists concerning such issues.
but what happens if someone steals the keys of a the other concierges and they disappear in person? wouldn't it still appear decentralized from an encryption standpoint?
