On Friday, February 04, 2011 David Barrett wrote: > That's true for piracy *and* communication: neither can get mass > adoption without seamless internet compatibility. A pirate mesh > needs to fall back on the internet when it can't find content > locally, and the communication network should only fall back to > the mesh when it can't communicate globally.
Most certainly. All I'm saying that the system that "offers to set up a DHT or even, ad hoc mesh network -- or even a "sneakernet" -- if it detects the internet has stopped functioning" most likely won't be used by anyone if it does not offer any clear advantages even when the Internet is present. People would deploy it only if they can use it to stream movies or something even when the Internet is working. Besides, if you won't excercise your mesh code even under the normal conditions, it most likely simply won't work when you'll need it to. Simply because you'll have the bugs in it that will go undetected if you won't be testing it all the time in a real-scale deployment. So I have a feeling that "switch to mesh when SHTF" is simply not a very realistic scenario, both from software development standpoint and from the user adoption one. You have to find some compelling reasons why people would want to install and use it long before that - and when it turns out that after throwing the Big Switch this app still allows you to do quite a few things within the mesh coverage area, you will already have the sizable installed base of instantly operational code. In fact, in places like airplanes and beaches you might find yourself pleasantly surprised even long before the Internet stops functioning. Sure, it will also help demonstrators to organize flashmobs in Upper Lampusia - but only if they will already have it working by the moment when they will actually need it. Best wishes - S.Osokine. 4 Feb 2011. -----Original Message----- From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of David Barrett Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:37 PM To: p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) protesters On 02/04/2011 12:02 PM, Serguei Osokine wrote: > http://blog.quinthar.com/2011/01/how-piracy-will-hyperlocalize-with-mesh.html > > - albeit with software radio instead of the existing wi-fi hardware. > > So David, since this mesh hyperlocalization was your own idea, I'm > not sure - why would you suggest that ther's no compelling value in > mesh networks, even with normally functioning Internet? Except for > this pesky ubiquitous wi-fi encryption, of course... I'm pro-mesh for local activity. Piracy is best done locally (for both performance *and* security reasons) so is best done over a mesh. In other words, mesh piracy can be *better* than internet piracy. Global communication, on the other hand, is best done with the internet. Mesh communication is *worse* than internet communication, at least over large distances. Ultimately, we should use the best tool for the job. The internet is really frickin' good; we should use it whenever it's available and preferable. That's true for piracy *and* communication: neither can get mass adoption without seamless internet compatibility. A pirate mesh needs to fall back on the internet when it can't find content locally, and the communication network should only fall back to the mesh when it can't communicate globally. -david > > Best wishes - > S.Osokine. > 4 Feb 2011. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com > [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of Alen Peacock > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:55 AM > To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) > protesters > > I'd always hoped that a global ad-hoc wireless network would spring > from something like MIT's RoofNet > (http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php). > > There's still a lot of academic research into ad-hoc networks, but I'm > not aware of anyone really pursuing something like this in the > commercial space -- anyone been following closer than me? > > Alen > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Serguei Osokine > <serguei.osok...@efi.com> wrote: >> On Friday, February 04, 2011 wrote: >>> The only way something like this will take off is if it provides >>> some *very* compelling value even when the internet is functioning >>> normally. >> >> Two things that spring to mind first are CB-like (as in "CB radio") >> anonymous contacts with people who are in the vicinity, and the p2p >> traffic anonymization through local relay chains. 802.11 typically >> has plenty of spare bandwitdth, being much faster than your normal >> ISP broadband link, so you can have, say, five-hop relays without >> any service quality degradation whatsoever. Kind of like local Tor, >> except that in 802.11 space you're not paying for forwarding traffic >> with your own service quality, and tracking the ad-hoc MAC-address >> routing is pretty challenging for an adversary. >> >> Of course, 802.11 traffic is routinely encrypted these days, so that >> might be a bit of a challenge - but this challenge is present in any >> ad-hoc scenario. >> >> Best wishes - >> S.Osokine. >> 4 Feb 2011. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com >> [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of David Barrett >> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:12 AM >> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks >> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) >> protesters >> >> On 02/04/2011 08:58 AM, Julian Cain wrote: >>> >>> This is false. Egypt cut ALL Internet traffic including mobile. Having said >>> this the only solution is an AD-HOC network built with existing hardware w/ >>> internet gateways somewhere along the path. This technology has been around >>> for quite some time. The downside is that it takes an incredible amount of >>> effort to daisy chain home and office routers in a manner that will "act" >>> like the Internet. This is the only solution to a complete >>> government/corporate takeover. Build a new Internet with existing hardware >>> that gateways users into the public Internet. >> >> Just to clarify, did Egypt cut *domestic* phone and internet, or just >> *international*? For example, if I had a server inside Egypt, using an >> Egyptian domain, could users inside Egypt generally access it? >> >> >>> Most home routers can perform this either by extending the network or >>> bridging networks. >> >> The only way something like this will take off is if it provides some >> *very* compelling value even when the internet is functioning normally. >> Otherwise it'll always be relegated to being a tiny fringe project. >> >> >> I think a better approach is to prepare a system that uses the internet >> when it's available (as it almost always is), but then offers to set up >> a DHT or even, ad hoc mesh network -- or even a "sneakernet" -- if it >> detects the internet has stopped functioning. >> >> For example, imagine that everybody's mobile Twitter device, upon >> discovering a loss of connection to twitter.com, offered to connect to >> the "BlueTooth mesh". In high-density environments like a protest, I >> imagine it could actually work. Then all the laptops that had domestic >> internet access establish a DHT (perhaps they quietly had it established >> all along) and bridge the various bluetooth meshes that have sprung up >> around the nation. And at that time also mention that it can just >> "manually synchronize" using a USB keydrive or MP3 player. >> >> But all this needs to be kept quiet, totally automated, and entirely >> unobtrusive in normal operation; it can't bother people to even consider >> these options when the internet is available, because the internet is so >> much more convenient to use. Nobody will care about any of these >> features, and they'll be an active *demerit* to the application that >> *reduces* its adoption -- up until everybody absolutely depends on them. >> >> -david >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >> >> Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. >> It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us >> by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any >> contained in your reply. Thank you. >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >> > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. > It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not > that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us > by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any > contained in your reply. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any contained in your reply. Thank you. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
