I spent quite a bit of time in the last few months studying computer networking technologies, and I think that the principles that operate in the function of switching and routing algorithms for routing traffic are very applicable to this subject.

The process of achieving consensus in a network is called 'convergence'. Switches are simpler devices than routers, and only operate within local area networks (LANs). The topology of local area networks can include multiple redundant paths, and to eliminate the very serious problem of routing loops, they use the Spanning Tree Protocol and its' successor, I forget its name just now. These switches can take up to a minute to set up path tables that prevent these loops from occurring and causing 'broadcast storms', a problem that came up a lot in the early days of ethernet star topology networks with multiple possible paths, which the decentralised network diagram above shows examples of.

Then there is routers, which do the job of setting up routing in between local area networks and across multiple, usually also redundant paths between LANs across, usually, point-to-point WAN (wide area networks, long range connections). There is the Shortest Path First algorithm and other methods of finding efficient paths between nodes.

These systems by their nature cannot depend on logical centralised maps because this would slow down the process very badly when links go down or new paths are brought online. Instead each router communicates with other routers to tell each other about these changes, about which networks each router has connections to and when they change these changes are advertised.

Convergence (consensus of the map) happens very quickly, and does not require a central map to do this. Border Gateway Protocol, Open Shortest Path First, IS-IS and several other protocols are used in larger networks spanning between LANs and none of them operate by centralised databases.

This is part of the reason why the decenttralised database systems of which Steem and Bitcoin and other blockchains have emerged. Client-Server pathways and authoritative central databases may converge faster than collaborative, peer to peer data distribution systems, but if you want to take down a network, you only need to cut off the head and everyone is disconnected. The model of centralised, top down network authority and its single points of failure is the issue for which these systems aims to eliminate. It applies equally well to financial databases as it does to political systems. They all fail in the same way and are subject to the same 'fast convergence' and 'single point of failure'.

The Steem network, and indeed Dash and its' Masternodes mix the two topologies together. The network has two tiers, effectively, but the head of the network is not fully centralised, there is still a consensus building approach at the head and the head of the network is decentralised within its boundaries as well.

The logical topology as exists within the hierarchy of Steem accounts, the Whales, Minnows and Dolphins, is more fluid than the underlying structure of the system I mentioned above. The redistribution of steem power is designed so that these big players are forced to redistribute their power or their ability to influence the hierarchy of users degrades over time.

It is not intended that there is any final state to this part of the network, it needs to be fluid and change according to the way that people vote, and for there to not be one single node in the network who can change the whole network according to its' opinions, or the crabs will jump out of the bucket.