[josh2600]

I understand the goal. I don't understand how a peer P2P system is going to route large groups at scale. I don't think phones are powerful enough to deal with the kinds of routing you need for large scale comms services.

In general, as the number of nodes in a comms graph increases, the overhead of synchronizing the comms between those nodes increases to the point that noise dominates signal, which is why most comms networks end up being a hub and spoke system instead of a mesh. I think that mesh can potentially work in the ~10k node range, but I don't think you can have multi-million node mesh networks, which is what a P2P system will need to function at scale.

I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but my knowledge of networking suggests that in a high node count network, the overhead of synchronizing node state dominates network traffic.

Edit: In summary, I think that in most big comms networks, the endpoints do the encryption and the servers do the heavy-lifting of routing. Again, I would love to be proven wrong.

Edit 2: Just to be clear, I am excited for the way matrix pushes the envelope on comms tech. I think it's cool to see active development in these systems wherever it comes from. My caution is only about what I've seen in pure mesh-networking systems (and the dangers of self-hosted systems becoming the very centralized systems users thought they were escaping from).

[Arathorn]

So it's true that P2P Matrix is currently full mesh (which is why it's staggering a bit as everyone trying it from HN piles on). However, you can absolutely do better than full mesh without going straight back to hub-and-spoke: you can use spanning trees (like Yggdrasil), or gossiped segmentation as libp2p's Gossipsub does (https://blog.ipfs.io/2020-05-20-gossipsub-v1.1).

Also, you don't need to scale larger than the number of nodes in a single room (or worst case, the number of nodes visible to your account). For context, the largest rooms in today's non-P2P Matrix have about 100K users in them, and a typical poweruser account sees about 400K other users at any given point. Obviously as Matrix grows this will increase, but I strongly suspect rooms will then move into "celebrity" or "auditorium" modes - much as Facebook & Twitter etc have a separate class of routing algorithms for handling traffic for accounts with millions of followers.

[josh2600]

The problem with hub and spoke is that the hubs hold the social graph and then become the target for censorship. I don't think there are any techniques employed by Matrix to mitigate that threat at this time (please correct me if I'm wrong).

In short, if you have a small network (under 10k nodes), I think P2P can work, but for networks of large scale (>10k nodes) I think you need hub and spoke, at which point the routing nodes in the center are the lynchpin. You can use some kind of mixnet tech to try to get around this, but that increases latency and computational overhead, thus lowering throughput. You can go the Signal route and throw the graph in an enclave, but there's still side-channel analysis (which is the thing that mixnets are trying to deal with, albeit I can't comment on their efficacy). Harry over at Nym has some cool ideas here.

I am not sure that spanning trees or gossip protocols solve the problem I'm describing, but, if they do, I'd appreciate if you could elucidate further.

Edit: Yes, I agree that N to N routing networks don't scale well. I think a K of N broadcast network can scale, but it's a tricky UX tradeoff.

[Arathorn]

Matrix mitigates the threat of a hub & spoke model by not being hub & spoke (particularly in P2P!) :)

> I am not sure that spanning trees or gossip protocols solve the problem I'm describing, but, if they do, I'd appreciate if you could elucidate further.

Perhaps the confusion here is the expression "hub and spoke" which sounds to me like a static centralised star topology routing model.

My point is that if you have 1M nodes trying to share data (e.g. follow a celebrity's personal pubsub topic), you clearly need a smarter routing algorithm than full mesh (where the celeb's node would have to do 1M parallel pokes to send its messages). You're completely right that one solution is a hub-and-spoke model (where the celeb's node would poke a big centralised hub somewhere, which would then relay the poke out to 1M followers on spokes) - but as you point out, the hub becomes a centralised chokepoint of failure/control/privacy-violation etc.

So, the main other options I'm aware of are either to arrange your 1M nodes into a spanning tree (or overlapping spanning trees) of some kind, as Yggdrasil does (their current one looks like https://yggdrasil-map.cwinfo.org/#, although only ~300 nodes are live atm)... or you let the nodes self-organise into some kind of hierarchy based on gossiping and fan out the messages that way (as per https://blog.ipfs.io/2020-05-20-gossipsub-v1.1, and some of the experimental routing stuff we've been doing with Matrix).

[MayeulC]

The good thing with Matrix is that it's room-based, and I haven't really seen rooms with over 10k users. Presumably most of these nodes would be offline most of the time.

I can easily see routing being delegated to more powerful homeservers. That said, you do not need perfect routing to be better than hub and spoke at using the network effectively, and it seems to be what most current mesh networks aim for.

[Arathorn]

the only time you need to coordinate beyond rooms is for presence and for synchronising device list updates, fwiw.