Doesn't really get any downloads, so not sure there's much demand for this - but I use it with some shokz bone conducting headphones for talking to my wife when we're cycling (also for wrangling our two small girls)
For example, this completes with motorcycle communicators such as Sena. That dedicated hardware can be over $400. If your app is as easy to use as a Sena device and you market it to bikers looking for a cheaper alternative you'll get users.
Sena or Cardo work in 2.4 Ghz (ISM) range as well, but as a class 1 devices, which with 100mW (20 dBm), they can allow for maximum range in excess of 1 mile.
I'd use Walkie - talkies (PMR 446 MHz, about half of a mile of the range in the town) before resorting to the smartphone bluetooth. Likely only feasible on the parking.
Smartphone bluetooth is fine for two bicycles but it does NOT compete with a purpose-built hardware, especially not with the top makers like Cardo or Sena, LOL.
The audio codec on ble is more modern too.
> “You can't even hear a ok quality music further than 20 metres away” That smells like the SBC codec running on Bluetooth classic to me. Very different tech.
(See: https://old.reddit.com/r/Briar/comments/gxiffy/what_exactly_...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43363031 }
Anyway, -Question: I take it Murmur is end to end encrypted fully? Also, just curious if this is open source?
This could become SUPER useful- having a actual mesh networking Bluetooth app , if it's open source/E2EE!
It works best if there's 3 phones though - as it can route via the other if a link drops.
If it's open source, I would love to help.
I will give your app a try.
Was trying to keep things simple though - the separate server seemed a step too far for most people I talked to about it.
I've used these[0] in the past and they worked ok. I lost the pair I bought when traveling and thought using the plethora of radios I have with me anyway on my phone with an earbud headphone would be much better replacement. Would be great for group rides to just send an app link instead of suggesting they all buy $100 hardware.
Honestly I think a well marketed and polished commercial app would have both Sena and Cardo[1] both quite existentially scared.
[0]: https://www.sena.com/en-us/product/pi/ [1]: https://cardosystems.com/
They're not really a competition.
Or 2 metres from the window a mile from Hammersmith. If not for WiFi calling I'd have to leave my phones on the windowsill.
Purpose-built hardware is Class 1 (much stronger, 100 mW/20dBm vs 2.4mW/4dBm), and they can use sophisticated protocols to keep the connection stable. And that's Bluetooth.
If they're not playing Bluetooth but go general ISM, they can emit whole 1W on 2.4GHz or 915 MHz.
They're not really alike.
Might be more reasonable to use higher bandwidth, lower latency codecs over bluetooth as well?
Decide which one is it.
PS Motorola talkabout T62 or T42 - small, light, reliable. Retevis h777: sturdy, reliable. You can just drop them in the bag.
For one rider to one rider you can get a very decent set well under $100 (Lexin b4fm, FredConn, even Thokwok is well reviewed).
I wonder if there's a home lab / self hosted solution for this.
I don't think so.
Also, I could see it as a useful tool in emergency situations. But a lot of people would need to use it to be actually useful.
I'm regularly frustrated by modern phone's complete inabilities to allow any communication when outside of mobile network or Wi-Fi coverage, not even within the two large walled gardens.
It would be so easy for Apple to extend iMessage to work peer-to-peer, at least between people that have already messaged each other before and while both screens are on. That's literally how AirDrop works, and having to send a "Notes" text back and forth is just silly.
But if it happens we'll have to figure out how to write partition tolerant apps, which I think would be a lot of fun. It would also make "going viral" so much more apt, as you might catch the content from people you got physically close to.
There's no cell service or wifi at my neighborhood movie theater. If I could send her a message when she's up, I could tell my wife to bring me back a box of Sno-caps.
If you're hiking in the remote area youre much better off with LoRaWAN or amateur radio transceivers anyway.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/multipeerconnectiv...
I'm a bit more concerned that it is a niche application. Not having Mac myself, can't compile it without going through the hassle of getting the environment running.
It would be better if the application was built is something a bit more cross-platform, as I find the idea really good. Not sure if the "mesh network" part would work though, as you need a really high enrolled-device density in order for it to work further than just an office (it's BT after all). I guess the "Fork" button is there for a reason, or maybe a new repo with some other stack.
As much as people want to be "leet" and run 3rd party software, it's inherently insecure and that's why Apple shuts it down.
There was a version of Apple at a point in time where I agree with your rhetoric. They have completely lost credibility to uphold that position IMO.
Apple definitely does not spend billions guaranteeing "quality". To prove my point, where does Apple even define what they consider "quality"? How can you quantify such an aubjecrive and ambiguous term?
They spend billions paying out the 70% they don't pocket.
Heck, They don't even adhere to their own HIG nor let us revert to past (objectively higher quality) versions of iOS.
I'm not saying Apple doesn't profit from it, but they're not just pocketing every penny.
As for "quality", they mostly check that your app isn't using unauthorized APIs, or doing other scetchy stuff, like leeching all of your data. They couldn't care less if your app is bad, thats' between you and your potential users.
Does it work ? apparently so. Apple catches around 2 million apps every year that are rejected for those reasons. Android has about the same amount of apps, but there they're caught by Kaspersky (and others) after they're published.
That doesn't mean that malware isn't making its way through the App Store review, the damage will be somewhat limited if it can't use private APIs.
I should add that here in the EU, where we’ve had 3rd party app stores for over a year, nobody uses them. The absolutely biggest one, Epic Games, has attracted about 29 million users across both iOS and Android, out of a population of 450 million.
That's a runtime feature, it has nothing to do with the App Store.
Sure you can: build it and check the hash. If the maintainer prepared for such a check ahead of time it can be as simple as:
wget https://github.com/owner/foo-project/releases/download/.../foo
sha256sum foo # make note of this
nix build github:owner/foo-project
sha256sum result/bin/foo # it should match this
Of course there's still the should-you-trust-this-code part of the problem, but at least bad guys in that case must operate in public view, which is--once again--a stronger deterrent to shenanigans than anything that happens behind closed doors at Apple.
you can't get a build hash from a downloaded app to then compare to a source build.
It’s not like people really have options to choose when it comes to choosing a smartphone.
It’s easy to have a growing share price when you are a duopoly. You don’t have to serve your users.
I also own a Linux phone, but I don't use it. Maybe one day someone will create one that's actually usable...
You don't need to because you compile it from source yourself
IMO ultimate solution is for Apple to curate some sort open source store where they vet the source and builds "in public".
Rofl. And citation needed.
https://blog.technitium.com/2015/05/technitium-bit-chat-rele...
I had released that 10 yrs ago lol.
Would also be neat if there was a way to build a LoRA proxy to extend the range. I might give this a try with my meshtastic devices.
It's an Arduino library for mesh networking, that works over BLE and UDP, but it can also link to MQTT.
An MQTT node routes the packets it sees to the appropriate topics, and subscribes to topics for all the channels local nodes want, so you should be able to talk to anyone anywhere via the gateway.
The packet destination addresses are rolling codes, so you can't tell if someone's online just by watching their channel, at least not for more than an hour.
And there's a web app that talks directly to the public MQTT broker, and it can do chat and sensor data.
All payloads are Messagepack to make it easy to add new data types, and all packets are encrypted, authenticated, and timestamped to provide a bit of replay protection.
Everything is purely symmetric crypto, trust is left to a higher layer or something out of band, so you there's no handshakes or connection state management overhead, aside from one announce packet per hour to make the MQTT gateways work.
No LoRa, but the transports are modular and pluggable so you can easily add them. I just only have one LoRa Arduino node here so I haven't bothered writing a driver.
I'm also working on a Python port for easy pip-installable bots and home automation stuff.
I wonder what other transports you could do, like 38khz IR through a telescope?
The S8 coded mode with 125kbps rate is the long distance one. Support for it in phones is not widespread, sadly.
Presumably that is the key to getting out of the Apple ghetto.
I wonder why they didn‘t implement the BLE mesh networking standard released in 2017 by the Bluetooth SIG.
This is fine for managing a few hundred temperature sensors or lighting controls up to the building's floor concentrator, which is the main use case for this standard, but it is completely unsuitable for sending individual messages from user A to user B.
It would only take 4 people at 5 hops apart trying to exchange photos of less than a megabyte to completely saturate a network of hundred devices.
That technology is interesting, but it is probably not a good usecase. There are potentially lots of interesting things you could do with smart watches and bike computers, such as uploading activities without direct connection to a phone or sharing routes with nearby participants, etc.
Use cases where you may not necessarily have a phone or adequate network coverage.
What would be the use case? Send the picture to someone at the other end of the lecture theatre? It's likely that there would be a phone network or Wi-Fi available. A crisis or emergency situation where networks are down? There isn't much population density or movement to propagate the data.
This debate is not new, many teams have worked on wireless ad hoc networks, some with very encouraging results. The real problem is what the use cases are.
That's why I personally think that the use case should be related to travel, transport, sport or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Situations involving movement and loss of connectivity.
Now you're back to using a centralised system using a network you know nothing about, operated by someone you don't know.
> direct Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection or an AirDrop
AirDrop is not cross platform AFAIK. Direct wifi or bluetooth aren't the easiest to work with for non-technical users.
> A crisis or emergency situation where networks are down? There isn't much population density or movement to propagate the data.
Why not? Do emergencies only occur when people are few and far between? I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
> That's why I personally think that the use case should be related to travel, transport, sport or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Situations involving movement and loss of connectivity.
That's certainly a valuable use case, but probably not something that bitchat would be useful for.
It doesn't work very well from a technical and practical point of view. Just having the app on your phone could be enough to get you charged in a totalitarian state.
So it's interesting, but it's not the use case that will democratise this type of ad-hoc network. For example, it is easier to implement end-to-end encryption on an existing infrastructure.
There must be a use case where there is no network connection, enough network participants, and that can accommodate a significant transmission delay.
Consider if at a large conference where enough participants are able to create a mesh and then leave geo tagged messages and send beyond BT range.
If there was a way to piggyback on top of the airtag network we could do a lot more.
There are other alternatives for Android, like https://github.com/glodanif/BluetoothChat but it is only for close distance chatting without any network other than Bluetooth, doesn't have encryption, and is not IRC-themed.
I am glad it's public domain - I don't think I really want to invest any effort in getting non-techy people to try and use something that might go away one day and be irreplacable. OTOH, I need Android as well so....
Am I missing something?
From what I can see, it's a native IOS/MacOS app (SwiftUI). I don't see an Android version.
Also seems pretty spartan, but it looks like it could be embedded in "friendlier" apps.
Also, I have not seen unlicense before -- guess I'm one of todays lucky 10,000
[0] https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/wikis/FAQ#will-t...
Backrounding is kinda klunky. I think it's deliberate, as that's a real security vector.
> protocol is designed to be platform-agnostic. An Android client can be built
https://github.com/jackjackbits/bitchat?tab=readme-ov-file#a...
If I were an Android developer, though, I'd just use the Swift files as a requirements spec, and write it native.
For Apple only. In what way is this universal?
SwiftUI apps can often do both.
I’m probably gonna rewrite my Bluetooth explorer app in SwiftUI. Doesn’t need any fancy UI.
Seems like people in this thread are inspired by this novel concept that isn't novel at all.
FireChat was in fact used against dictatorial governments during protests in Iraq and Hong Kong. So it fits the aspired goal for the apps suggested here perfectly, and yet still failed as a product.
Use case? You're in the middle of a protest. Where to next?
Hopefully, not in prison.
Scuttlebutt is another decentralized peer to peer messaging platform
Since its so niche people should probably collaborate to get one of these solutions out into adoption. Coding stuff is super fun though...
But i'm also firmly in conviction that p2p is the future, so i don't know how we get there. regulators getting on Apple's ass again?
It’s a good example of what someone can accomplish when they understand how to work effectively with them.
The range is perfectly good for a lot of applications where one might actually want to not use the internet, just not all of them.
If there's receive window timing issues you can't assume two nodes right next two each other will get the same subset of packets most of the time.
My solution is just to resend every message four times, and not bother with protocol layer reliability for BLE at all, the packet rate is low and all the acknowledgements use airtime anyway.
the spitball questions I would ask might be, a) how do you handle a theoretical timing attack where the time to respond to a room scan could yield whether a given device is a member of a known room, (the paralellism?) and b) does the GCM counter IV/nonce value cluster around rooms, so the counter for a given room will be in a shared range?
not dealbreakers or anything, this is simple and cool for its purpose, but design consideration wise, what's the thinking on those scenarios?
https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/07/jack-dorsey-working-on-blu...
Wonder how many Claude Code tokens that would take...
This is listed as a dedicated "feature" in the README: "IRC-Style Commands"
In general mobile app development seems to be very maintanence heavy
So we could have localhost or offline websites doing this.
But perhaps I could give briar another try.
No wait, let's reinvent the wheel again :)
In case of war or something, internet is down, decentralized Bluetooth messaging app is your last problem.
IRL you will be using unencrypted radio, yes doesn't make sense. But already proven in the UA war.
Try using encrypted radio on the frontline and you will get suicide drones or artillery shell on your position, pretty quickly ;-)
Get rid of all these garbage social media (government honeypots) platforms that leak all your data every other weak.
Use Zero-knowledge proofs for authentication into distributed web apps.
Use BitTorrent file system to distribute data to prevent a single point of failure where all your data is leaked.
I could go on and on.
Now add a twist: • Senders pay a small fee to send a message. • Relaying devices earn a micro-payment (could be tokens, sats, etc.) for carrying the message one hop further. • End-to-end encrypted, fully decentralized, optionally anonymous.
Basically, a “postal network” built on people’s phones, without needing a traditional internet connection. Works best in areas with patchy or no internet, or under censorship.
Obvious challenges: • Latency and reliability (it’s not real-time). • Abuse/spam prevention. • Power consumption and user opt-in. • Viable incentive structures.
What do you think? Is this viable? Any real-world use cases where this might be actually useful — or is it just a neat academic toy?
The Helium Network tried something like this, but with a fixed infrastructure: People were incentivized to run Helium network nodes and could earn micropayments for running nodes and handling traffic.
It revealed a lot of problems with structures like this, such as the incentive to cheat through various loopholes that were discovered.
It also became apparent that the monetization/tokenization aspect overtook the network functionality as the primary motivator for the project. After a while, people started looking at the traffic and payouts and realized that almost nobody was using it for real communication, it had become one big shell game for collecting the payments designed to incentivize nodes to come online and relay traffic. Then the token itself had become a speculative commodity that people used for trading more than anything.
I think it would be interesting if someone could invent a stable coin cryptocurrency with low overhead that enabled some of these use cases, but it seems the allure of generating a new token that the founders can sell into a speculative market to raise funds for the project is always too alluring, so every project goes from having good intentions to becoming a veiled pump and dump. Maybe some day there will be a stable coin that escapes these issues, but I haven’t seen it yet.
Like the US dollar and Postgres?
For like $200 anyone can start a business entity in the US with a tax ID and a bank, I’m still yet to understand how crypto is better other than for circumventing regulators
Irreversible is also not a good thing just ask anyone who had their NFTs stolen during that craze. If someone hacks my bank account or skims my card and transfers the money out the bank can reverse a lot of those transactions. Irreversibility wipes out decades of consumer protection advances.
See Monero
So is cash. What we really need are ways of scanning a piece of fiat currency that instantly transfers that money to an account while then disabling the physical copy from the registry as valid. That's how silly I see crypto for anything other than illicit transactions
Very much depends. Cameras, fingerprints, banknote ids, cell tower/GPS or just people seeing you.
Irreversible is bad because mistakes happen. I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.
Publicly verifiable -- not good because I don't want the public knowing what I buy.
Pseudonymous is the worst of both. Is it or is it not me? them?
I am thinking digital cash using pub keys on a network run from space on something like starlink sats.
Was the option of doing a much smaller amount available to validate the account before following up with the full transfer? I've never understood not doing a test transfer first.
I just got sent real estate documents because the sender used my uncommon firstNameLastName@ gmail, but because they had a typo of the last name it landed in my inbox.
In fact, I have no idea how your comment is relevant to losing money.
You accidentally got someone else's document. How is that relevant to losing money?
As a reminder, you said: "I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.". How can you lose ~$1,000 because of someone else's typo in which an e-mail landed in your inbox?
>".... one entity in charge which gets to set the level of fairness"
Exactly what is unfair about the current system? The way we insure fairness is with laws and regulation. A system without those will suffer - well - lawlessness.
How is it centralized? The vast majority of dollars only exist as bits in computers in multiple banks all over the world. Doesn't get more distributed than that. Not only that - if you don't like dollars trade it for Euro's or Yen - you can pay your rent, mortgage and buy things with them also.
Other benefits of the current system. If someone steals my credit card I'm only on the hook for $50. My transactions are confirmed in a matter seconds pretty much anywhere in the world. I AutoPay many of my bills. If I set up automatic payments with Bitcoin I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
There are problems that Bitcoin could help solve - it just isn't replacing currencies. I see a technology in search of a problem.
Do you even hold significant government currency, or do you only hold the layer-2 bank currency, and stocks?
The one to look at for that is Monero: the closest thing to private(anonymous) digital cash that I've found (so far).
I think Bitcoin has become a typical fiat asset ouroboros now, because the people who actually want to circumvent regulators are using Monero (which is why Monero is banned in most countries), while the Bitcoin price is supported almost entirely by speculation and a little bit by people doing only-slightly-shady things with crypto who haven't noticed everyone else moved to Monero.
https://achdevguide.nacha.org/
The OP's idea is an improvement: if you have to use crypto, then the only way a token is generated is when a sender buys one with fiat, so that they can transmit their message on the network.
Personally I think everything gets perverted when monetisation becomes the primary goal.
The biggest problem I immediately foresee is that this sounds backwards. It doesn't work best in areas with patchy or no internet, it works best in areas with lots of participating devices. It's most needed in areas with patchy or no internet, but those areas are likely to be the opposite of the areas with lots of participating devices.
I would say that the underlying issue is that people do not really "own" their devices and the corporations that do are vulnerable to (or complicit in) state coercion.
You cannot truly have freedom on a non-free device, you can just be small enough to not be worth taking action against yet.
For a more extensive discussion on censorship resilient mesh networking, see IETF Internet Standard draft from 2012 [1]. After the Arab Spring there was global hope. Great to see revival of this topic today. Mesh networking is 1990s. The lesson from decades ago was that mesh networking can't be the killer use-case. Users need a reason to install this and allow it to drain the battery while looking for nearby nodes. Mesh networking never broke through the glass ceiling.
Blocking apps is real. Even Amazon killed a side-loaded app [2].
[1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-sc...
[2] https://torrentfreak.com/amazon-remote-disables-piracy-apps-...
But I mostly agree - they rolled it out worldwide later on because once you reason it through, disabling it when it's not actively used turns out to be the better default.
I think you could reasonably argue that the measure limits Airdrop spam.
If there is a low density area between two people, a message could take a long time to show up. A message from NYC to LA is effectively relying on the messaging being cached on a phone in NYC, that person flying to LA, and then continuing the journey.
Those working against the demonstrators could send people out with QR code to infect the phones will malware for their own means.
Wireless internet is getting better, but when you really need something like this, you really need it.
On a Pinephone you can turn it off with a physical power switch.
If you really wanted to, on most other phones you could desolder it and throw it in the garbage. You'd need to already have custom firmware on the main CPU (or should I say "application processor" to fit in with the people who say "baseband processor") so it wouldn't crash or lock up when booting.
A little bit less destructive (in case you want to use your cellphone as a cellphone later) would be replacing the antenna with a dummy load.
In fairness to op, the proposed solution seems best intended for comms blackouts in densely populated areas rather than areas with persistently limited access.
Participate in the development of Reticulum. Install the app Sideband on your Smartphone or other device.
Sideband is a chat app that uses LXMF. LXMF is a messaging protocol based on Reticulum. Reticulum is a full network stack that is decentralized and transport layer agnostic.
What we need for your vision is LoRa modems integrated in our phones.
Or just a bluetooth mesh interface for Reticulum. That is a great idea. Develop that, and you have exactly what you described.
To be more specific: Reticulum's main program is the daemon rnsd. It uses so called interfaces and can route between them (WiFi, LoRa, other radio services...). Implement a new interface type that uses the technology called 'bluetooth mesh' and your vision is done.
Reticulum supports using serial ports as interfaces, so if you get serial-over-Bluetooth working it can be done now.
One other thing I really like about Reticulum is that it also supports generic stdin/stdout to a process as an interface, so with some scripting and what not you can literally make it work over anything.
(YES APPLE DOES THAT TOO)
The firmware on these devices is open source (minus proprietary blobs for ESP32 WiFi, etc.) and the community is active. Check the Meshmap [2] to see some nodes that have made their location public in your area.
[1] https://meshtastic.org/ [2] https://meshmap.net/
So long as you're using the standard long fast and 0/20 frequency slot you'll still have your messages passed via NCMesh nodes even if you're using the broader US Mesh as your MQTT server.
[0] MQTT here simply tunnels the messages over the internet so you get placed in a broader chat room and pseudomesh than you could reach through RF.
[1] https://ncmesh.net/learn/#coverage
I love the project and participate, but people mentioning stuff like this in response to buzzwords irritates me. Like ipfs it is a buzzword-driven curiosity, not a real solution to real problems that anyone has.
Additionally, the meshtastic encryption is a toy. In 2025 when you say encryption you make people think of modern features like replay resistance, perfect forward secrecy, etc. Meshtastic doesn’t do any of this.
IPNS, on the other hand...
In practice, it takes upwards of a whole minute to locate a file it's never seen before, so it's not terribly useful. It's better than nothing, but it's not terribly useful.
It's still cool that someone tried. IPFS is one in a long line of ideas that didn't really work. Occasionally some of these ideas have massive success, like the Internet, and Bitcoin.
The thing is, it's almost impossible to guarantee payments work as expected in decentralized system, see "double spend attack". Bitcoin was designed to prevent it but does it by having common ledger which is a bit too much for a chat
Ontop of that, I think payment isn't critical. You join the mesh because you want to use it yourself - all you need then is to limit how much power you're prepared to spend on it. What does it matter to you if 100 people use your phone or none? ....other than power.
To put it another way, I think money would introduce a commercial motive which would end up gobbling up the system like bitcoin mining.
I don't think relaying messages would require that much power and as you said, "You join the mesh because you want to use it yourself".
"Just encrypt things" might be your reply. TOR folks have been fighting an uphill battle for ages with that as their main weapon.
And if someone tries and fails to send a message across such a gap, is it stored on every phone in the vicinity? That could lead to unwanted conditions (large queues, multiple delivery), which also muddle the accounting. But not doing so practically guarantees the message won't be delivered.
It gets more complex if there's messages intended for Village C where no one from Village A visits though without some deleterious privacy impacts from needing to know what nodes see what other nodes but if the messages are relatively small you can address that with just increasing the level of optimistic caching and forwarding perhaps. Also the higher bandwidth the link the better so you can transfer more of these optimistic packets.
I'm generally against strapping a coin to this since it seems inevitably to hamper end user adoption in favor of making money for speculators and the people in the ICO. It could incentivize creating static point to point links though by providing potential revenue. Not sure that gets over the downsides of strapping a coin onto this though.
However, I wonder how would the sender know how to route the message so that it gets to the correct recipient. It would have to send it to all nearby devices, which would then send it to all nearby devices, and so on, but that would be terribly inefficient; moreover, the message would continue to circulate even after the recipient received it, unless the recipient sends a receipt acknowledgement, which would then need to be propagated to all devices as well.
Apple's Find My network is not decentralized: all participating devices send the locations of objects they find to Apple's servers, which then forward the information directly to the correct recipients.
Having nodes know their neighbors isn't necessarily required. It can help build a more efficient network where nodes know their neighbors and their neighbors' neighbors which can allow for a shorter number of allowed hops. If a node knows the route to get to a recipient, it can continue passing the message even if the hop counter is at zero. For example, a node in a rural area would require a couple hops to reach the edge of the city where the message is immediately passed using a known route even if the allowed hop count has run out.
But you can also build a totally blind network where nodes just pass a message until the counter hits zero. A blind network may be helpful in a contested environment where you can't trust any nodes with information beyond its own view.
If the information isn't critical, then you can hide the network even further by not requiring ACK messages from the recipient and not building a route trace in the metadata. This prevents a bad node from collecting network information.
Personally, I've always been surprised that traditional cellular networks didn't try to incentivize femtocell placement by awarding compensatory minutes or megs or something, to the operator of the serving femtocell. Imagine someone with an apartment over the old bakery downtown where the historical district has made it difficult to place normal towers, so they get a femtocell for their own usage. But if it carries other customers' traffic, they'd get kickbacks and incentive to place it near the window where it has the best view of the shopping area below. Suddenly they're working on RF optimization without even knowing it.
In both cases, you have an existing payment expectation that you're just piggybacking on. People already pay their ISP for connectivity, so they expect to pay Althea, and the distribution of money after that is a detail. People already pay their cellco for service, and if some of that kicks back to other customers, that's a detail.
I think your idea has legs, if you can solve the onboarding and payment expectation. There's also a critical-mass problem that Apple solved with Find My by just force-installing it on every device without consent, and you can't do that. So people will only run your software if they:
A) know about it
B) are in a place with poor enough connectivity that it's needed
C) are in a place with enough user density that it's worthwhile
D) perceive that it doesn't unduly kill their battery while in a place that also might not have a lot of opportunities to charge
That's a mighty tricky combination, especially the overlap between B and C. The only setting I can imagine is Burning Man. But micropayments directly conflict with the gifting and decommodification principles.
Remember that network operators plan their frequency allocations so that base stations on the same frequency don't also overlap in space. How would you ensure this with random femtocells? The frequency allocation plan for a femtocell relies on it having a very small area of coverage and being far away from others, so that it doesn't matter if they all use the same frequency.
Cell networks aren't plug-and-play YOLO networks like wifi - they're properly engineered stuff.
Now, they could absolutely form a contract with a customer to put a proper base station in their apartment window - according to the locations and frequencies that best fulfill the needs of the network. Not just "buy one of these and plug it in for a discount" but "we'll pay you ten times over to let us fill a corner of your apartment with big metal boxes, and enter for maintenance with 24 hours notice". Evidently this is a lot of hassle compared to getting permission to put them on roofs, so they don't do it.
I assume this Althea network does something similar but with a reversed order of operations: first someone sets up a network repeater, then someone at Althea HQ figures out how much value they're providing to the network. If it's fully automated, it would run into the same problems as Helium, like people creating fake nodes to carry fake traffic (if nothing else, getting a discount on their real traffic by pretending it passed through 100 of their own nodes before reaching someone else's node).
Socially not viable since all actors that could make it happen are incentivised to actively work against this to ever happen: Governments and big tech. Where are the ad opportunities if stuff does not go to a central platform which profiles you and serves "content" with ads?
It would technologically be even pretty easy to do. There have been many attempts already, including things like roof net / freifunk. It just never works because you have very big actors against you.
You pass along a message, and get a token in return. Then, some options:
1) the message never makes it through
2) the message makes it through, via your path
3) the message makes it through, but via some other path, and yours is really a dead end
Also, how would you handle the case where multiple peers all get the message and send it through the same bottleneck node? I guess you’d want to have some incentive to widen bottlenecks, so that no nodes become important…
This is an interesting thing when financial institutions do it between themselves. It's completely useless as a consumer-facing payment system. Consumers aren't going to plan in advance how much money to lock up, that's just stupid.
I assume you're not referring to the transaction fee because last I heard, it's not currently $25.
How do I know that for device A to reach device B, I need to go through device C but not D?
And if I try to go through device D but device C actually delivers the message, then does device D get paid? How would you validate which devices actually participated in the transmission of the message? How does this not turn into a privacy nightmare?
Look up "distributed peer to peer" e.g. kademlia
Timing is the key: you want to start working on it when the regular internet shows cracks.
In the meantime, build features that work in both worlds!
http://radiomesh.org
Your proposal is that since Alice and Bob can't communicate in real-time, either directly or indirectly, Alice does an interaction with a smart contract to lock some value and then Bob does an interaction with the same smart contract to unlock some value.
We can view the smart contract as some shared algorithm between Alice and Bob (if they are running their own nodes) or we can view it as something outside of them both (perhaps they are RPC customers of Infura). If Alice and Bob are running their own nodes, however those nodes manage to communicate with each other is a way they could just send the message to each other and not need a blockchain. And if they're both able to communicate with Infura, they could also swap Infura for Gmail and send each other a message the normal way (or if they can really only reach Infura for some reason, they can put their messages on the blockchain). But we are talking about designing systems that can work in scenarios where direct communication like this is impossible, and messages have to be forwarded hop-by-hop over a span of hours. You can't design a system for slow networking, that assumes the existence of a separate fast network just to run the payment system.
All nodes running a blockchain have to be in low-latency contact with each other. If you try to run Bitcoin in a network with multi-hour latency, you'll never reach consensus on which blocks are in the chain. You'll be hard-forking all over the place. You'd have to slow it down to, like, one block per week, but then it's far too slow to be useful for payments.
If a blockchain exists in such an environment, it exists on a tightly-coupled cluster of nearby nodes. And that cluster is pretty much the same as a single central node, from the perspective of the network. You don't gain anything by making it a cluster (except for redundancy, as usual).
The sender deposits a fee into a smart contract.
The message is encrypted in layers, with each forwarder only able to decrypt their part (like an onion).
As the message is forwarded peer-to-peer, each forwarder appends some kind of proof-of-forwarding.
When the recipient finally receives and decrypts the message, they unlock the contract using a code embedded in the message. This triggers micropayments to all the forwarders.
Do forwarders need to interact with the blockchain (i.e., create/update a smart contract) when forwarding?
If so, wouldn’t that require each forwarder to have internet access at the time of forwarding—which breaks the idea of fully offline Bluetooth relaying?
Or is all the blockchain interaction deferred to the recipient, who proves the path the message took and triggers all payments at once?
(The paper was linked from internet co-inventor David Reed's open spectrum site, which appears to be gone now.)
I worked the field both academic and startup, I even made one of the first implementation of the Bundle protocol for store carry and forward (IETF transport protocol for the deep space network RFC9171).
Turns out the Mobile OS are making this kind of communication nearly impossible. To work well, it basically needs background job (automatic scan of nearby ble/wifi/radio) and automatic connection without user interaction (imagine being prompted to accept a connection every time you pass by someone), both have been basically made impossible (especially after covid).
Isn't this how some covid-specific apps work to let you know if you've come in contact with an identified carrier? https://www.gao.gov/blog/covid-19-exposure-notification-apps...
They have been around for longer and have some interesting thoughts in there.
In a way everyone has something to barter: you owe the milk man, your employer owes you. Identities form a web of trust in the physical world.
Aside from that, most of what your concept includes (but uses Internet instead of BT) exists with Nostr+Lightning.
i'm not sure if in this case "only" the 4G network was shut off, but IMO it still serves as a good reminder of when such an event might happen again.
also: https://ooni.org/reports/
How resilient are those protocols to attacks on the integrity of the network, when most (or signicant part) of the nodes are controlled by a bad actor and deliberately operate in a mode that prevents the functioning of the network?
The Internet was a neat academic toy at one point for whatever that's worth :-)
Not quite the discoverable, user-friendly experience of Briar, Bitchat etc. but it can be combined with online links (Briar can technically go online, but only via Tor; both Briar and Bitchat are only for smartphones).
1: https://github.com/neilalexander/yggmail
[0] https://delta.chat/en/2024-11-20-webxdc-realtime
It's very little energy, but it's literally non-zero, so definitely not "literally zero marginal cost".
Why would the user care if it's negligible? Because very-small-but-nonzero things scale very differently from actual zero things. If the price of injecting something is zero or almost zero, then this gets quickly abused and suddenly your battery drains like crazy because somebody decided that this is an excellent new vector to serve spam. So everybody will deinstall/deactivate this.
And that's why we can't have nice things.
If you gossip/broadcast messages, the message will be copied to many nodes that end up not being involved in the actual path from source to destination. Will they still be paid for it?
If so, why shouldn't I copy each message I receive onto my 50000 Sybil devices that don't move, and get paid 50001 times what I should?
So let's assume instead that they don't get paid. That means when I receive the message I read out the path it actually took and pay those people. What if I simply don't pay those people? I could even forge a different path, maybe through my 50k Sybil devices.
I don't see a way to make it work. But nobody saw a way to make cryptographic digital currency work until Bitcoin, so maybe there's some crazy innovation that could make this work too.
Central node addressing control is the only way to solve it. Making it self-governing through payments is a nice idea.