>>25470
It's beginning to make more sense.
For starters, it sounds like it's run on a third point principle, where thesis-antithesis resolves to synthesis (third point). But seems like you'd get a lot of complexity with a model like that (so many transactions). The strength (diversity) is also the weakness (take time & computer power).

So is it a case of "the more nodes, the merrier" (assuming these nodes are all functional)? Obviously, you need trustworthy people, which brings us back to the question of, How do you vet your networK?

As mentioned in another recent post
>>25477
one way to vet oneself is to show one's work (not to everyone but to, say, Jim or codemonkey--assuming one is willing). Can definitely be done. For myself, i can certain projects that make me look pretty credible. And assume that active anons also have. Or they might have (you)s from Q, for example. Or ties to someone respected. There are many ways to vet one another.