> Which is cool but not how decentralised systems work in practice ... In reality, we have an economy that quickly works out who is the best .. and routes most

> Which is cool but not how decentralised systems work in practice ... In reality, we have an economy that quickly works out who is the best .. and routes most of the resources available for hashing there I disagree, somewhat. It depends on the purpose of the decentralisation. If your aim is "best" which I think also means "cheapest" then yes, you have described what could happen. But decentralisation can also have "resilience" as the goal, even at the expense of the best performance. These goals might even be in conflict. What if Samuel, as noted "wants to keep his place". What if Samuel wants all the traffic to go him so that at some time, he can subvert it in some way. He may only need 51% of the traffic. He may be willing to take a loss for a while to get into this position. He may even have a government backer willing to spend a lot on outcomes and not be seeking a profit in itself. And as noted, when Samuel is suddenly no the "best" after a long time in that position, chaos could ensue. I hear "resilient" when "decentralised" is said. Many others will too. You're showing how this may be very misleading.