I'm not interested in being the center of the network. I w…

How are you going to do that without centrality? You can do that a lot more easily from the center.

It must be started from a cluster's center, but it can be expanded over time without centrality after a critical mass of people with the right mindset is achieved.

Build the right culture, with the right structural elements in place, and it will happen.

Replicate what religions have, an omnipotent perfect being that sets all foundational behaviours (code) in stone but occasionally talks to the chosen ones or sends a cryptic message.

That only works with people who are easily conned.

You're saying BSV'ers are easily conned? Or just religious folk?

Anyone who would respond to the trick you mentioned.

Ah, righto. On a serious note I think fractals offer a good organisational model. Order at the macro scale with a common outcome/vision, made up of many smaller apps/organisations that have an independent central leader within each of them.

That's just a bunch of hub-and-spokes networks put together. The small world network results from everyone trying to gain centrality at the same time.

How will it look when miners start to specialise and offer bespoke transaction processing/ data handling services. Will propagation be more important than specialised transaction processing?

In the small-world network, there are many paths between any two nodes.

Everyone is small and macro at the same time.

If there are only a few large miners that can mine profitably, they only need to be slightly more connected than the other miners don't they? If they specialise in transaction processing, cuts competition further? Does the small world network breakdown?

No it doesn't. People compete for greater centrality. Everyone has centrality. The ones who can contribute the most have more centrality, however. If you want the most centrality, you have to be a big miner.

Thanks /pay @24 $2

I guess another way of looking at this is that if a miner is going to spend millions on hardware to process big blocks they have a strong incentive to spend a relatively small amount on being well connected to maximise the potential of returns.

What is the maximum number of quality connections the typical human being can maintain at a given time?

Is that number a significant portion of the human population?

All animals are central in BSV, but some animals are more central than others.

more importantly, there is always a direct one hop path between any two nodes. this is why it's a small world.

The impersonal world of market pricing and the social networking capabilities of the human mind are two entirely different beasts.

Agreed, and the difference between those acts as potential context for one's statements.

Consider my initial statement.

Then look at how others responded.

It's interesting, to see how people are thinking...

We need to increase the effective dunbar number with technology, like I said here. https://streamanity.com/video/3KN9cDyTN6eox6

The unaided human Dunbar number is ~150 people, IIRC.

What do you feel is an appropriate target number to make a significant impact?

How many orders of magnitude increase is that over the unaided number?

Every person should know every other one.

So... ~7 billion should be the new Dunbar's number?

A 7, approaching 8 order of magnitude increase?

Is that a fair rephrasing of your suggestion?

I'm assuming because you liked the above twetch but haven't replied that you see it is a fair rephrasing?

I want to be clear on this, because at current pop. numbers, it'd take ~247 years to devote a single second of attention to every person on Earth.

I am... Let's say, skeptical that such a target can be achieved, and I am also skeptical that such a goal would be beneficial to either individuals or the collective humanity.

I believe there are better ways to deal with human limitations.

Don't worry.