No. Nobody was interested in lowering latency in the network. The goal was using the communication line by the actors who weren’t officially allowed to use it a

No. Nobody was interested in lowering latency in the network. The goal was using the communication line by the actors who weren’t officially allowed to use it at all. And they succeeded by “implanting” a real “man in the middle” (using bribing). Then a “side-channel” was used to let other nodes automatically retransmit their own plaintext, undetectable when the information was processed by the original protocol by all the nodes. It was really brilliant. https://www.inc.com/magazine/19990915/13554.html https://www.inc.com/magazine/19990915/13554.html "Of course, the bribed operator could not simply be asked to transmit a few extra messages, since that would be immediately detected. Instead, the brothers instructed him to make a specific and highly unlikely series of errors in the transmissions to signal dramatic rises or falls in the Paris market. Normally, operators who had innocently made an error would encode a correction in a subsequent transmission. Both the error and its correction would then be duplicated from station to station. It was not until the message-plus-correction reached the end of the line that a telegraph official would step in to translate the transmission and remove the error. The Blancs were prepared: an accomplice who lived close to the last station on the line to Bordeaux took note of the "errors" before they were deleted and then relayed the news to the Blancs."