BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 07:35:37 pm

Title: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 07:35:37 pm
Bear with me as I explain an idea I had a few years ago regarding cryptocurrency and mesh networks, and let me know what you think:

As I'm sure most are familiar with here, the "last mile" problem refers to the incredible expense of wiring up a city for the last mile of connectivity.  There are hundreds of times more wire to run (and the expense of running that wire is much greater per mile) to connect each house within a city, than to run connections between cities.  That is a primary reason that there is virtually no competition for high speed internet access.  For instance, at my house, there is exactly one high speed internet company: Comcast.  However, if there were an inexpensive way to get internet to all the houses in the last mile, then the low cost of inter-city connectivity would drive down the cost of high speed internet (and drive up the speed).

Cellular service offers limited competition to broadband providers.  However, cellular technology makes very poor use of spectrum and thus cannot provide nearly the bandwidth necessary to become a real competitor.  To communicate with a single phone, each cell tower broadcasts a powerful signal over a broad swath of space, thus making that spectrum unavailable to communicate with other phones throughout that entire space.  This inefficient use of spectrum places a severe constraint on the amount of data that be transmitted.

Mesh networks can use spectrum much more efficiently because they can broadcast very weak signals over very short distances.  The weaker the signal the smaller the area monopolized by the transmission.  If the signal is only strong enough to reach the neighboring house, virtually no area is monopolized.  This leaves the spectrum available to all the other neighborhoods in the city to use simultaneously.  With efficient use of spectrum, wireless transmission can provide faster connectivity and higher throughput than the best broadband providers currently offer.  A simple illustration:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3DYmLtGsqQ/VCsItJpctyI/AAAAAAAALfg/ZGwup3qGZbI/s1600/rsz_p2p_cryptocurrency-__social_and_technological_implications_of_bitcoin_and_beyond.jpg)

In the first image, user 1 monopolizes the spectrum for the entire neighborhood.  In the second image user 1 monopolizes the spectrum for only a small area allowing user 2 to simultaneously transmit.

If mesh networking solves the last mile problem, why do broadband providers still have monopoly power in the broadband markets?  Why are prices so high and speeds so slow?  Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved.  Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective but there is very little incentive to invest in hardware, electricity, setup costs, etc., in order to relay other people's data.  To incentivize people to participate in the network, there needs to be some kind of payment for relaying data.  Existing payment networks do not handle micropayments well.  Bitcoin is better than traditional payment networks but its transaction costs are too high and confirmation times too slow.

To make a mesh network successful, there must be a payment network that can send pennies of value with confirmation times of just a few seconds.  Very small transactions that are quickly confirmed will allow *streams* of payments to be sent in exchange for *streams* of data, reduce the opportunities to free loading and stealing, and eliminate the need for trust between anonymous nodes.  Then each hop in the mesh network can charge according to how much data it is passing and what the cost of the alternative routes are.  This will drive competition to install mesh nodes in busy areas of the network where they are needed most.  If you happen to live in a busy area, you can buy a mesh wifi router, plug it into your wall and collect a stream of income everyday.

BTSX transaction times are too slow and transaction fees are too expensive.  BUT, it may not be that way for long.  BTSX is currently the closest of any payment network to meeting the requirements of such a mesh network.  The actual cost of propagating, confirming and storing transactions is much lower than the current BTSX transaction fee, so the price has room to drop.  And with certain protocol advances (based on knowledge of propagation times of competing double spend transaction, and delegate voting) it may be possible to "confirm" transactions before they are included in a block, thus achieving transaction times of just a few seconds.  With transaction fees less than a penny and confirmation times of only a few seconds, streaming payments are a reality and a mesh network could thrive.

It would revolutionize the communications industry.  It would compete with not just broadband providers but also cellular providers.  It would eliminate the last mile problem and throw open the doors to competition.  It would be a trillion dollar disruption.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Ander on September 30, 2014, 07:40:25 pm
Wow.  This sounds like a DAC that needs to be created!
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: robrigo on September 30, 2014, 07:43:00 pm
I believe the DNS test net has successfully shown 2 second avg. confirmation times of transactions. So what you are describing may be possible using the BitShares toolkit.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on September 30, 2014, 07:47:16 pm
There is no need to have transactions confirmed that quickly... peers would extend credit to each other and settle daily.  A node that doesn't settle will be cut off.  In a mesh network each node will have at most 18 peers  (neighbors left, right, front back, top, bottom, and diagonals) "in range"... if one of them doesn't pay then they are cut off.

Most payments could be made with "bandwidth bartering" and only the long-term trade surplus would need to be settled in crypto.

Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: roadscape on September 30, 2014, 07:50:27 pm
Great idea! Mind blown. (http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tim-and-Eric-Space-Explosions.gif)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 07:55:57 pm
There is no need to have transactions confirmed that quickly... peers would extend credit to each other and settle daily.  A node that doesn't settle will be cut off.  In a mesh network each node will have at most 18 peers  (neighbors left, right, front back, top, bottom, and diagonals) "in range"... if one of them doesn't pay then they are cut off.

Most payments could be made with "bandwidth bartering" and only the long-term trade surplus would need to be settled in crypto.

(1) You're thinking too small.  Done right, this can replace cell phone service too.  It's got to be trustless for that.  Nodes can't be settling up with your phone at the end of the day every time you visit a new neighborhood because that would allow cellphones to cheat and steal as much bandwidth as they want.

(2) Even if you confine the network to broadband, it needs to be easy to setup to get mass adoption.  That means you plug it in and it starts generating income or providing you with connectivity.  You don't want to have to worry about cutting people off or knowing the actual people you are connecting to.  Without a way to manage identity, an automated cutoff for cheaters would just mean that cheaters have to change their identification after each time they rip you off.  If nodes defend themselves from cheaters who are changing their identification constantly by refusing to accept new anonymous connections then you have just killed the ease of setting up the network, thus you've killed mass adoption, and thus you've killed coverage and throughput which depend on mass adoption.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on September 30, 2014, 08:35:35 pm
Identity is easily managed by having a bond posted in the blockchain that is forfeit if the node doesn't make good.  The two parties can then exchange receipts as quickly as they like and then claim it at the end of the day. 

There is a point where it is cheaper to extend a free sample than attempt to collect payment for it. 
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: amencon on September 30, 2014, 08:39:08 pm
This would be a very exciting DAC to see built.  The trouble will be finding areas where adoption is concentrated enough to make it truly useful.

With a currency DAC it have value even if the network is comprised of 2 users halfway across the globe from each other, for this you'd need areas of dozens or more users in close geographical proximity.

Despite that I'd be thrilled to see someone take on the challenge and would absolutely contribute by being a node in my area.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: bytemaster on September 30, 2014, 08:40:47 pm
This wouldn't be a DAC... it would be a standardized protocol that utilizes BTSX.  The routers would be "vending machines" not part of a DAC.

Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: mbaeichapareiko on September 30, 2014, 08:49:15 pm
wow,  the possibilities seem endless.  Great application and proposed real world problem/ solution demonstrated here.  digital currencies, and hopefully BTSX is able help make it happen. 

Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Rune on September 30, 2014, 09:01:04 pm
Even if it is necessary to pay per byte, a payment channel will be the most efficient way to handle microtransactions between meshnet nodes. So it could even be implemented with BTC's slow transaction times.

I don't think it will ever be possible to have "true" microtransactions (i.e. arbitrarily small stand alone payments) in a decentralized fashion in any cryptocurrency, because there will always be a flat price for distributing information to a network.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: amencon on September 30, 2014, 09:03:11 pm
This wouldn't be a DAC... it would be a standardized protocol that utilizes BTSX.  The routers would be "vending machines" not part of a DAC.
Hmm I went back and re-read the OP more closely and see what you mean.  So each node utilizing the yet to be built protocol would use it to communicate with the BitsharesX DAC and register on the chain to move value between other nodes which do the same?

I suppose it would be an even better situation since BTSX has value outside of micro-payments to mesh networking nodes and wouldn't rely on mesh networks to thrive before being a viable way to exchange value for connection services.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Troglodactyl on September 30, 2014, 09:10:25 pm
See also: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5082.0
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: speedy on September 30, 2014, 09:21:30 pm
Isnt another big problem with incentivizing mesh networks and internet sharing is that users at the end of the mesh chain dont have any BitUSD/crypto to send to the other nodes?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 09:24:41 pm
Identity is easily managed by having a bond posted in the blockchain that is forfeit if the node doesn't make good.  The two parties can then exchange receipts as quickly as they like and then claim it at the end of the day. 

There is a point where it is cheaper to extend a free sample than attempt to collect payment for it.

Hmmm...  I remember that proposal for bitcoin a while back.  Serious impediment if you have to wait 10 minutes for the bond to confirm, but if it's only 10 seconds that is not as big a deal.

But, imagine that you had to wait 10 seconds every time you wanted to make a phone call from a new location... even to connect your laptop to wifi, a 10 second delay would be pretty annoying.

Anyway, I think it's possible to get the delay down to a few seconds, which is just on the edge of a delay that won't seriously turn people off.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 09:26:42 pm
Even if it is necessary to pay per byte, a payment channel will be the most efficient way to handle microtransactions between meshnet nodes. So it could even be implemented with BTC's slow transaction times.

I don't think it will ever be possible to have "true" microtransactions (i.e. arbitrarily small stand alone payments) in a decentralized fashion in any cryptocurrency, because there will always be a flat price for distributing information to a network.

I disagree.  On BTC it takes 10 minutes to establish a payment channel (which I think is the same thing as a bond that Bytemaster suggested).  Imagine having to wait 10 minutes to connect your laptop to wifi, or to make a phone call.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on September 30, 2014, 09:27:48 pm
Isnt another big problem with incentivizing mesh networks and internet sharing is that users at the end of the mesh chain dont have any BitUSD/crypto to send to the other nodes?

Why is that an issue?  Can't they just buy some?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: xeroc on September 30, 2014, 09:39:38 pm
Hmmm...  I remember that proposal for bitcoin a while back.  Serious impediment if you have to wait 10 minutes for the bond to confirm, but if it's only 10 seconds that is not as big a deal.

But, imagine that you had to wait 10 seconds every time you wanted to make a phone call from a new location... even to connect your laptop to wifi, a 10 second delay would be pretty annoying.

Anyway, I think it's possible to get the delay down to a few seconds, which is just on the edge of a delay that won't seriously turn people off.
Much like in bitcoin, the network sees unconfirmed transactions, can let you in directly and cut the connection after 30 secs if the transactions does not get included into a block by delegates
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on September 30, 2014, 10:25:57 pm
Yeah I'd love to see distributed internet and maybe some people here can figure out a model that could align the incentives just right to make it feasible. But you'll be up against some big aggressive players.

I was following the OLPC-project very  closely and liked their solution, unfortunately, because that project did not run a certain operating system and did not need a certain manufacturers expensive cpu, a lot of time and effort went into diversion tactics in the shape of netbooks and forcing said bloated os on a system it was not suited for. The meshnetworking or any other concepts were not integrated into the netbooks and the bloated os helped kill  the project. The diversion was a succes and besides making some ripples in the industry, real disruption had been halted. But who cares, why would anyone want a screen you could use in direct sunlight anyways?

Anyways I'm a big fan of the concept of mesh-networks and I've been trying to think up ways and combinations with cryptocurrencies that would make it feasible. This looked promising (http://www.bitcoincard.org/product/) but I have not seen an update or sign of life from them for close to a year now. My current line of thought is that there might be a way to get several services to essentially piggy back ride on each other and with their combined utility value be able to foster and sustain a mesh network.

As for blocktimes, I agree with bytemaster that that is not a concern at all. You only need to transmit a valid signed message, the message itself does not to be confirmed several blocks deep. Even with bitcoin that is actually not a requirement. If you can do a quick check if the paying account has the funds and if you can be certain that enough nodes have seen the payment, then why would you need to wait for the transaction to be confirmed several blocks deep?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 01, 2014, 12:42:05 am
Isn't the latency going to be horrible? Perhaps it would only be useful for asynchronous messaging and batch downloads, which I admit is still incredibly useful. Also, there is no reason the blockchain settlement and micropayment channel functionality cannot be used for regular WiFi sharing (where the backend is still a typical wired connection and not a mesh network). Users could probably get much better data payment rates than those horrible phone carriers.

My biggest concern is liability. Are the end-point nodes going to have to deal with harassment by the government because some anonymous person used their internet connection to do illegal things. Take a look at the lack of Tor exit nodes. Sure, you can be financially compensated for your bandwidth, but that's not going to be enough to cover legal fees trying to prove to the government you weren't the one that initiated those "bad" packets.

As much as I hate it to conform to the government's nonsense that information can be evil, it may be necessary to build that into the protocol in order to grow adoption. I imagine it would be similar in principle to the cryptostock KYC design that BitShares is planning. You have a pseudonymous account which is flagged on the blockchain by a trusted identity verifier to meet KYC requirements. A (layer 5?) networking protocol would be necessary for the packets to include a signature by the pseudonymous account authorizing the (end-to-end encrypted) content sent via the packets. The nodes relaying these packets would need to inspect them to make sure they meet that protocol and of course that the pseudonymous account signing them is the one on the blockchain that meets the KYC requirements from a whitelisted identity verifier. If the authorities have a legitimate (warrant please) request to determine the identity of the person behind those packets (because they determined that session was used to connect to some server and do illegal things), they can leave the nodes alone and go straight to the identity verifier with their warrant. The good news is that the nodes participating in the network get to determine the whitelist. The riskier ones include identity verifiers who have a reputation of standing up to governments and defending privacy (imagine an EFF or ACLU identity verifier). If enough nodes do this, a user could use a pseudonymous account that was verified only with the privacy-respecting identity verifier and still hopefully get a decent internet connection.

Actually, better yet, maybe just the end-point servers would have the responsibility of checking the pseudonymous signature. That way the signature can be hidden inside the end-to-end encryption and everyone inspecting the network wouldn't be able to over time link together a particular user's server connection habits. Also, the computational demand for each of the relay nodes is reduced. That would be the more sensible way to handle it. But it means that the authorities need to not hold relay/exit nodes liable; instead they would require the end-point servers to be responsible for checking that the pseudonymous signature meets KYC requirements before accepting their connection, otherwise the company/individual running the server would be liable for what the user does via that server. Servers can then publicly publish their identity verifier whitelist, and users can know which identity verifier they need to trust with their privacy in order to access that server (and whether it is even worth it).





Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 12:44:53 am
Hmmm...  I remember that proposal for bitcoin a while back.  Serious impediment if you have to wait 10 minutes for the bond to confirm, but if it's only 10 seconds that is not as big a deal.

But, imagine that you had to wait 10 seconds every time you wanted to make a phone call from a new location... even to connect your laptop to wifi, a 10 second delay would be pretty annoying.

Anyway, I think it's possible to get the delay down to a few seconds, which is just on the edge of a delay that won't seriously turn people off.
Much like in bitcoin, the network sees unconfirmed transactions, can let you in directly and cut the connection after 30 secs if the transactions does not get included into a block by delegates

huh?  we're talking about side channels...
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 01:05:37 am
Yeah I'd love to see distributed internet and maybe some people here can figure out a model that could align the incentives just right to make it feasible. But you'll be up against some big aggressive players.

I was following the OLPC-project very  closely and liked their solution, unfortunately, because that project did not run a certain operating system and did not need a certain manufacturers expensive cpu, a lot of time and effort went into diversion tactics in the shape of netbooks and forcing said bloated os on a system it was not suited for. The meshnetworking or any other concepts were not integrated into the netbooks and the bloated os helped kill  the project. The diversion was a succes and besides making some ripples in the industry, real disruption had been halted. But who cares, why would anyone want a screen you could use in direct sunlight anyways?

Anyways I'm a big fan of the concept of mesh-networks and I've been trying to think up ways and combinations with cryptocurrencies that would make it feasible. This looked promising (http://www.bitcoincard.org/product/) but I have not seen an update or sign of life from them for close to a year now. My current line of thought is that there might be a way to get several services to essentially piggy back ride on each other and with their combined utility value be able to foster and sustain a mesh network.

As for blocktimes, I agree with bytemaster that that is not a concern at all. You only need to transmit a valid signed message, the message itself does not to be confirmed several blocks deep. Even with bitcoin that is actually not a requirement. If you can do a quick check if the paying account has the funds and if you can be certain that enough nodes have seen the payment, then why would you need to wait for the transaction to be confirmed several blocks deep?

I didn't say anything about several blocks deep.  I said 10 minutes, which in Bitcoin would be one block (on average).  Why wait for a confirmation before giving away resources to an anonymous buyer?  Simple:  you don't want to be cheated.  This is a big problem with 10 minute block confirmation.  For instance, someone could place a 10 minute phone call through your mesh node, or get 10 minutes of web browsing and then not pay.

Remember also that in a mesh network the node providing the connectivity to the phone/tablet/computer, is paying another node for that bandwidth (and that node is paying another node, etc.).  So it's not like someone came by and used some of your unlimited comcast bandwidth.  You actually lose money because you have to payout to the upstream nodes.

Even with BTSX's 10 second confirmation times and a bond posting scheme it's still a problem.  If you let people start using the internet before their bond is confirmed they can potentially get a few seconds of connectivity without paying for it.  Not a big deal if you only get a few seconds, but if they didn't post the bond then they can just keep doing it over and over to leach free bandwidth.  People could write cheating apps for smartphones that allowed you to send free text messages, synchronize email for free, etc. in 10 second increments without paying.  Ideally to avoid cheating applications like that, you could get the confirmation times down to just a couple of seconds. 

For instance, here is one way to get confirmation times down to a few seconds:  Even if the transaction is not officially confirmed, if you can monitor the network for double spend attempts, and if after a few seconds there are none, then you know that your transaction has propagated to most of the network before a double spend and is thus at low risk of a double spend attack if delegates include the first spend they receive (and there are other things you can do to make the risk lower by tweaking how delegates choose which transaction to include in the case of double spend transactions).  In this scenario, even if you let people connect instantly you would only lose a few seconds of bandwidth.  Furthermore, a few seconds is short enough that you could let their upload data (e.g. http request) through instantly and hold on to their download data until after the seconds had elapsed, and it would still feel pretty seamless. (This would eliminate the incentive to cheat because the user couldn't get any return data from their request until after payment clears, while making the latency involved with paying for the connection appear lower because the return data is all queued up at the last hop and sent through as soon as payment clear.)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 01:17:22 am
Isn't the latency going to be horrible? Perhaps it would only be useful for asynchronous messaging and batch downloads, which I admit is still incredibly useful.

Why would it be horrible?  Your IP packets already take a bunch of jumps to get to you.  Adding another 5-10 jumps shouldn't be a huge issue, should it?

My biggest concern is liability. Are the end-point nodes going to have to deal with harassment by the government because some anonymous person used their internet connection to do illegal things. Take a look at the lack of Tor exit nodes. Sure, you can be financially compensated for your bandwidth, but that's not going to be enough to cover legal fees trying to prove to the government you weren't the one that initiated those "bad" packets.

It's not settled that legal liability would attach.  There have been some cases about people not securing their wifi connection in their homes, and outsiders using their wifi for evil purposes, and I don't think anyone has gotten in serious trouble for not securing their wifi.  It won't be targeted by government unless it is fairly popular, and once it is, there may be little the government can do.  Your example of tor for instance is apt.  Tor is still going.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 01, 2014, 01:58:25 am
Why would it be horrible?  Your IP packets already take a bunch of jumps to get to you.  Adding another 5-10 jumps shouldn't be a huge issue, should it?

Maybe someone with more experience in this field can comment, but if you want to replace the last-mile connectivity, I don't think it is going to just be 10 additional hops. I doubt the latency would every be low enough for gaming, voip, and video chat. And the latency might be high enough that browsing the web recreationally would suck so much that you rather not bother. There is still a lot of use cases that would be great: blockchain transactions, text messaging, email, search results, staying up to date with the news (particularly if the device automatically pulls it from subscribed feeds in the background), downloading important software updates, batch downloads of content/media, and perhaps even streaming media if the mesh network can handle the bandwidth. In my view the mesh network technology is good to have to provide basic internet connectivity to people who cannot get it otherwise, so they can keep up to date with news, do business, and communicate with each other. I think the technology applied to WiFi sharing (with regular wired backend) is fantastic to reduce our dependence on the incumbent carriers and their cell networks. But this doesn't replace people's desire for high bandwidth, low latency fiber to the home.

It's not settled that legal liability would attach.  There have been some cases about people not securing their wifi connection in their homes, and outsiders using their wifi for evil purposes, and I don't think anyone has gotten in serious trouble for not securing their wifi.  It won't be target by government unless it is fairly popular, and once it is, there may be little they can do.  Your example of tor for instance is apt.  Tor is still going.

I am just saying this legal uncertainty can kill adoption. My example with Tor illustrates this. Very few people care about using the slow Tor network. If people are too scared to be exit nodes in this network because of the legal liability, the internet access in this mesh network is going to be very slow. It doesn't even matter if they win the court cases. The fact that they need to defend themselves in court already raises their costs which they need to pass on to mesh network users with higher fees. People won't bother with the expensive, slow mesh network when they can get a cheaper, faster cell network (not even mentioning wired connections).

Ideally, there would be either overwhelming court precedence or a group to lobby the government and pass laws that makes it clear to people that they won't get harassed for relaying information in a network. That way it ends people's hesitation in participating in this network. But I doubt the government is going to give up the harassment until they get some other way to get the information they want (someone to point a finger to as being guilty for either unauthorized access to computer systems, aka hacking, or publishing, whatever that means, information they deem inappropriate). The government's whole logic behind all of this is IMO so flawed to begin with (I don't want to get started with that), but it is the reality we live with currently.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 01, 2014, 02:53:03 am
So all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device.

Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.

I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: lakerta06 on October 01, 2014, 08:50:53 am
I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

Drinking his scotch on his private island?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:14:50 am
Maybe someone with more experience in this field can comment, but if you want to replace the last-mile connectivity, I don't think it is going to just be 10 additional hops. I doubt the latency would every be low enough for gaming, voip, and video chat. And the latency might be high enough that browsing the web recreationally would suck so much that you rather not bother.

Possible that gaming wouldn't be practical (at first), but my guess is that everything else would be.  Remember, especially early on, there are likely to be hundreds or thousands of internet connections throughout the city because at first people will be sharing their comcast connectivity over the mesh and making money on it (it could be very difficult for comcast to detect).  As time goes on those thousands of comcast connection points could be replaced by inter-city comcast competitors.  Putting 100 connection points throughout a big city is only a *tiny* fraction of the cost of wiring up every house, so it would be feasible for competitors to enter the market, even if it required placing many connection points.  Furthermore you can aggregate all the connection points of all competitors when thinking about how many connection points would be spread through a city.  So if there are 10 competitors who each have placed 100 connection points, then you have 1000 connection points spread throughout the city.  So yes, I think 5-10 hops to a connection point could be very realistic.

It's not settled that legal liability would attach.  There have been some cases about people not securing their wifi connection in their homes, and outsiders using their wifi for evil purposes, and I don't think anyone has gotten in serious trouble for not securing their wifi.  It won't be target by government unless it is fairly popular, and once it is, there may be little they can do.  Your example of tor for instance is apt.  Tor is still going.

I am just saying this legal uncertainty can kill adoption.

My intuition is that the legal uncertainty would not prevent this from catching on, and once it did catch on, courts and legislatures would be less likely to adopt laws that would kill it.  I'm a lawyer so I take legal uncertainty very seriously, but in this case my guess is that it wouldn't be a crucial factor.  But I admit that that is only my intuition based on experience and study.  Impossible to know for sure.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: 麥可貓 on October 01, 2014, 11:20:44 am
So all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device.

Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.

I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

Speaking of Firechat, the mesh networking ability is the key reason why it is widely used in recent protests in east asia. For example, people attending the onging protest in hong kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests) use Firechat to tell each other to escape from pepper spray and tear gas casted by the police (http://www.solidot.org/story?sid=41313). Traditional messengers are useless here because people are too crowded there to use bandwidth. Also, traditional messengers are blocked by the goverments there.

As one of the purposes of messeging system in bitshares toolkit, KeyID, and the Vote DAC is to improve the freedom (of communication) and avoid surveillence of the authority as once revealed in this picture:
(http://ww3.sinaimg.cn/large/ee164940jw1ekkxhj8jljj20p10gp3yr.jpg)

To achieve 'free, private communication everywhere', I think the implementation of mesh networking ability in BitShares Toolkit is not 'additional', but 'necessary'.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 01:14:30 pm
So all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device.

Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.

I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

Ha!  It actually may be quite a bit simpler than that.  There are opensource wifi meshnet implementations for sharing internet connections already and there are opensource router firmware packages for customizing popular routers already.  So here are some straightforward steps to get the project going:
1) Integrate BTSX payments into existing opensource implementation of internet sharing wifi meshnet (this is the hardest step as it requires considerable thought and experimentation regarding network performance and incentives)
2) Integrate that implementation of meshnet+BTSX into existing opensource implementation of router firmware
3) Sell router as one step plug and play package for connecting to the meshnet, advertise, form business partnerships, etc (can probably get this kickstarted or VC funded)

extra credit:

4) Port the opensource wifi meshnet from step 1 to smartphone apps so you can also connect to the meshnet from Android and iOS (PCs are already supported by opensource meshnet implementations).

For step 3 I image that you might pick one tech literate city and advertise the hell out of it to get a critical mass going.  Once it's up and working in one big city it will spread like wildfire to the rest of the world.

Bitcoin is still looking for its "killer app" to propel it into the mainstream.

If ever there was a killer app for BTSX, this could be it.  It could take BTSX to full blown mainstream adoption in a matter of a few years.  With *transactional* demand driving the price of BTSX (instead of speculation which currently drives the volume of all cryptocoins) it would have unparalleled investment legitimacy, and that could lead to very rapid adoption throughout the world economy.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Stan on October 01, 2014, 01:18:15 pm
I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

The same thing he does every day, Pinky,
try to reengineer the world!

(http://crazy-frankenstein.com/free-wallpapers-files/cartoons-wallpapers/pinky-and-the-brain-wallpapers/pinky-and-the-brain-wallpapers-1024x768.jpg)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: nomoreheroes7 on October 01, 2014, 01:33:43 pm
I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

The same thing he does every day, Pinky,
try to reengineer the world!

(http://crazy-frankenstein.com/free-wallpapers-files/cartoons-wallpapers/pinky-and-the-brain-wallpapers/pinky-and-the-brain-wallpapers-1024x768.jpg)

NARF!
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 01, 2014, 03:34:23 pm
So all we need is BM to combine BTSX, Storj, Maidsafe and Firechat into a global meshnet protocol that can connect any Bluetooth/WiFi device.

Throw in DAC to operate/maintain a bunch of those Facebook sub-orbital drones and/or microsats for continental inter-connectivity.

I mean really, what's he going to do with all the spare time once Bitshares is off and running?

Ha!  It actually may be quite a bit simpler than that.  There are opensource wifi meshnet implementations for sharing internet connections already and there are opensource router firmware packages for customizing popular routers already.  So here are some straightforward steps to get the project going:
1) Integrate BTSX payments into existing opensource implementation of internet sharing wifi meshnet (this is the hardest step as it requires considerable thought and experimentation regarding network performance and incentives)
2) Integrate that implementation of meshnet+BTSX into existing opensource implementation of router firmware
3) Sell router as one step plug and play package for connecting to the meshnet, advertise, form business partnerships, etc (can probably get this kickstarted or VC funded)

extra credit:

4) Port the opensource wifi meshnet from step 1 to smartphone apps so you can also connect to the meshnet from Android and iOS (PCs are already supported by opensource meshnet implementations).

For step 3 I image that you might pick one tech literate city and advertise the hell out of it to get a critical mass going.  Once it's up and working in one big city it will spread like wildfire to the rest of the world.

Bitcoin is still looking for its "killer app" to propel it into the mainstream.

If ever there was a killer app for BTSX, this could be it.  It could take BTSX to full blown mainstream adoption in a matter of a few years.  With *transactional* demand driving the price of BTSX (instead of speculation which currently drives the volume of all cryptocoins) it would have unparalleled investment legitimacy, and that could lead to very rapid adoption throughout the world economy.

Seed the networks by dropping solar-powered autonomous nodes in major urban centres.

With a little bit of advertising folks will download the app and connect to the cheapest and most secure internet conceivable.

The rest will take care of itself via word-of-mouth, eventually the seed nodes can just die off.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: xeroc on October 01, 2014, 03:44:01 pm
we can start building that kind of mesh network with mobile phones first:
https://opengarden.com/apps

"earn bitUSD by providing network to people nearby"!
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 04:14:26 pm
we can start building that kind of mesh network with mobile phones first:
https://opengarden.com/apps

"earn bitUSD by providing network to people nearby"!

Exactly!  If you could earn money by running opengarden it might really take off.  People would start running it everywhere (it's available for Mac and Windows) and feel gratified every time they saw their earnings tick up.

But realistically most people won't want to share their cellular data connections because cellular data is so expensive/scarce.  But broadband data is not.  So I think the place to start is giving people a way to share their broadband connections via mesh and earn money for it.  The phone apps will probably mostly be used to get data from the broadband connections rather than to share the cellular connections.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 01, 2014, 05:01:03 pm
we can start building that kind of mesh network with mobile phones first:
https://opengarden.com/apps

"earn bitUSD by providing network to people nearby"!

Exactly!  If you could earn money by running opengarden it might really take off.  People would start running it everywhere (it's available for Mac and Windows) and feel gratified every time they saw their earnings tick up.

But realistically most people won't want to share their cellular data connections because cellular data is so expensive/scarce.  But broadband data is not.  So I think the place to start is giving people a way to share their broadband connections via mesh and earn money for it.  The phone apps will probably mostly be used to get data from the broadband connections rather than to share the cellular connections.

You might be surprised with the cellular data. I don't use anywhere near my monthly allocation and I'm sure there's a lot of folks in the same boat.

If the opengarden app could track/learn my average monthly data consumption and automatically sell the unused data... wow.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: xeroc on October 01, 2014, 05:01:39 pm
agreed ... still afaik you can also share you wifi connection via opengarden .. I need to check out these apps ASAP :)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 01, 2014, 05:17:11 pm
Is opengarden only for celular data then? Their site lists wifi.

Oh, even though I'm late to respond, no you actually don't need to wait for the first confirmation in bitcoin. As I said you only need to know if the payment is possible. Verifying the balance doesn't take 10 minutes, and you can see all transactions waiting in line even without them being in a block and you can actually see how far the transaction has spread through the network and even deduce the likelihood of it being processed in the next block.

I've been told by several sources that the mycellium android wallet even has a gui just for that. So you can decide how much trust you want for a particular payment right up until the block-confirmation. So for POS and small to micropayments, the blocktimes can be worked around. I also was under the impression that the payment protocol by Mike Hearn had similar options.

Then again, why would you actually need to run the complete blockchain on the mesh network anyway? You could use trusted intermediaries like the delegates or something like open-transactions. You only need parts to check out and a certain level of reliability of being sure the transaction will be included in the block. And why wouldn't shops want to run their own trusted  node on which customers must send their transactions if they fear being scammed by a random passerby?

Btw if this is running on a mesh network anyway, you could detect a scammer within said 10 minutes blocktime and alert all surrounding people to his presence. Have alarms go off on all phones surrounding the guy/girl. Or would that be too evil?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 05:18:11 pm
agreed ... still afaik you can also share you wifi connection via opengarden .. I need to check out these apps ASAP :)

Yes, I think you can.  But I don't think you can sell it.  And that will make a HUGE difference.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 01, 2014, 05:32:09 pm
Coming back to the trusted node system for the mesh payment network, would it not be feasible to convince shops in crowded areas to be seed nodes if they can get paid for sharing their bandwidth to the mesh network and at the same time be sure they have a very reliable link to the payment network. Use greed and fear at the same time, that's a tried and true tactic which has worked wonders since time in memoriam.

I think the trick for a lot of these distributed models is to find a way to piggy back onto other beneficial things and provide freebee services that way. My favorite analogy is trying to latch a couple of passenger cars onto a freight train and let the freight transport provide free public transport.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 01, 2014, 05:49:06 pm
Coming back to the trusted node system for the mesh payment network, would it not be feasible to convince shops in crowded areas to be seed nodes if they can get paid for sharing their bandwidth to the mesh network and at the same time be sure they have a very reliable link to the payment network. Use greed and fear at the same time, that's a tried and true tactic which has worked wonders since time in memoriam.

This is genius!

Starbucks + McDonalds.

Retailers could reduce overhead or perhaps even add a new revenue stream.

Wow.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 05:49:35 pm
Oh, even though I'm late to respond, no you actually don't need to wait for the first confirmation in bitcoin. As I said you only need to know if the payment is possible. Verifying the balance doesn't take 10 minutes, and you can see all transactions waiting in line even without them being in a block and you can actually see how far the transaction has spread through the network and even deduce the likelihood of it being processed in the next block.

That might be enough.  It leaves open the possibility of collusion with a large miner to steal back some percentage of transactions, but for some reason no miner has started offering that service (as far I know).  I suspect one day some miner will start offering a steal back service since a dishonest miner can make the honest income plus theft income, and be reasonably protected on tor.  Maybe it's just too complicated.  Or maybe it's not worth doing right now because Bitcoin is too small.

Anyway, Bitcoin fees are too high.  BTSX wins on lower fees for this idea.  Though I guess if you use a payment channel you really only have to pay two fees (establishing the channel and closing the channel) per new mesh connection.  So maybe this can be done on Bitcoin just fine.

Hmmmm... this makes me think that maybe BTSX doesn't have such a practical advantage over Bitcoin.  Especially if p2pool really takes off and mining becomes more decentralized... I guess BTSX has lower transaction fees and less waste, but not sure how important those are to adoption since BTC fees are very low compared to traditional payment processors, and will probably drop even further over time.  Users don't care about the waste.

A lot of people here think BitAssets are the killer app but I just don't see that.  The big web wallets (e.g. Circle) are contemplating services to carry USD balances.  To the mainstream end user that is just as good as BitUSD.  If there is mainstream demand (which I doubt) they could easily offer gold pegged balances or any other balance.  Hell they could even integrate a brokerage and sell you bona fide stock shares.  Hard to argue that BitAAPL is better than AAPL.

So as far as mainstream users are concerned, BTC seems to offer everything BTSX offers.  The technology may be more wasteful and less secure, but nobody is really going to understand that or care about it.  People will value Bitcoin higher than altcoins for the same reason people value gold higher than silver:  cus' that's how it was last year.  (http://about.ag/debate.htm)  Maybe I should sell my BTSX...
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 01, 2014, 06:26:40 pm
I wasn't trying to discredit bitsharesx, but it also doesn't help to leave misconceptions about bitcoin out in the wild either.

How you see the chances of survival is of course up to you, but neither bitcoin nor bitshares will be running their entire blockchain over a mesh network any time soon, because that is just doing it wrong. Bitshares dpos has the added bonus of a solution to get the efficiency of a little centralization, but with the ability to still have voting power of the network as a user, while bitcoin does not. Bytemaster did propose a plan on how bitcoin could move to dpos, but the response has not been overly enthusiastic up till now.

The thing with bitcoin is, that it is not quick to change and will not adapt as fast as the smaller more agile altcoins. And the slogan that bitcoin can just take anything from any alt and implement it, I'm afraid is a load of bovarian excrement. I'll believe it when I see it, until then it's just talk and what I'm hearing is that developers are having a hard time even getting paid. They have been posting outcries that people should stop seeng the group of volunteer core-devs as some company they can demand a product from. It also leaves the problem that mining centralization is a big problem and that the 51% network attack has been achieved months ago, just because you split up ghash.io in name, does not mean you don't control the majority.

Here's my humble tip, see this all as a very very early experiment and don't believe anyone when he tells you what the future will bring. So betting blindly on a single experiment even the only slightly less tiny one like bitcoin is not the smartest move you could make.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 06:31:18 pm
How you see the chances of survival is of course up to you, but neither bitcoin nor bitshares will be running their entire blockchain over a mesh network any time soon, because that is just doing it wrong.

Huh?  No one suggested that.

The thing with bitcoin is, that it is not quick to change and will not adapt as fast as the smaller more agile altcoins. And the slogan that bitcoin can just take anything from any alt and implement it, I'm afraid is a load of bovarian excrement.

I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it?  And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 01, 2014, 06:58:25 pm
I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it?  And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...

Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.  If the average Joe doesn't give a four letter word, than that would probably mean that the first system to come with actual solutions will get the cake (or at least the first serving of it), not the one who promises he might or might not offer something in the achievable future. The features and technology bitsharesX has, it has them right now, bitcoin as of now, does not have those features. Getting an exchange working on the bitcoin blockchain will not be an easy copy paste from bitsharesx, I'm fairly confident in that assessment.

I agree with you that getting critical mass in user adoption is key, but I am not as confident that bitcoin has that, so if you have any solutions or ideas on that front, then I think those would be very much appreciated on this forum. Btw, I'm not against bitcoin, although I do like bitshares solutions a lot better. I just want the decentralized revolution to happen and I don't have any preference how or with which project, but I do hope from the bottom of my heart that it will not be a single blockchain one.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 07:05:28 pm
I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it?  And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...

Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.

Huh?  My point is that the users only care about what they can do with the currency.  They don't care how it works, whether it is more decentralized, whether it is theoretically more secure, etc.  Can they buy beer with it?  Can they buy peg it to USD?  Can they use it to buy mesh internet connectivity?  Those are things the user cares about.  The user does not care if the block chain uses proof of work or delegates, if confirmation times are 10 seconds or 10 minutes (if you are right that confirmation times can pretty much be ignored), if purchase of assets such as USD are decentralized like BitUSD or centralized like Circle's upcoming pegged USD balances.

When you look at BTSX advantages, it's all stuff that the user doesn't care about.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 01, 2014, 07:30:28 pm
I agree with that, but then again, if there is no compelling advantage of an altcoin to the USERs it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can integrate the altcoin's technology, does it?  And as far as I can tell BTSX's supposed advantages don't amount to much when you really drill down...

Now you've lost me, which users are you talking about now? Because first you say the average user doesn't give a hoot about what bitcoin actually is or how it works, nor do they care about any other coin and what they might become, and then suddenly you say they do care.

Huh?  My point is that the users only care about what they can do with the currency.  They don't care how it works, whether it is more decentralized, whether it is theoretically more secure, etc.  Can they buy beer with it?  Can they buy peg it to USD?  Can they use it to buy mesh internet connectivity?  Those are things the user cares about.  The user does not care if the block chain uses proof of work or delegates, if confirmation times are 10 seconds or 10 minutes (if you are right that confirmation times can pretty much be ignored), if purchase of assets such as USD are decentralized like BitUSD or centralized like Circle's upcoming pegged USD balances.

When you look at BTSX advantages, it's all stuff that the user doesn't care about.

Yep. Average Joe is not going to care about the tech as long as the front end is fast, easy and pretty.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oco101 on October 01, 2014, 08:57:06 pm
Bitcoin security cost  about 600 millions dollar a year, that's one of the reason bitcoin price is going down.
51 attack it is a very real possibility
No price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized  company Circus  Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ?  )
Fees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin
10 min transactions ( yeah I know not a big issue for you or the users but still ..)
Discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40%-60% and it getting worst  (p2pool will never  be competitive with ghash.io)


BitshareX  has none of those problem.

-With BitshareX you don't need Circle or Bitpay, so for starters you have very low transactions fees  in BTSX  and  you pay  ZERO fees to Circus or bitPay. Now  what bitUSD you'll use ? 
-bitAssets give users yield.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: xeroc on October 01, 2014, 09:51:14 pm
It almost seems as the bitcoin people just don't believe us :-) Their very own fault :D

In a year or so we can print shirts with: "we told you so .. LAST year" :)

(http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=4885046&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=What%20if%20I%20told%20you&text1=what%20I%20told%20you%20LAST%20year%20already&text2=&text3=)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 01, 2014, 10:02:04 pm
Bitcoin security cost  about 600 millions dollar a year, that's one of the reason bitcoin price is going down.

That buys *a lot* more security than is needed.  The reality is block rewards are more a way to distribute coins at this point.  As block reward continues to halve it won't cause a huge problem for security.

51 attack it is a very real possibility

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But to most people the length of time a system has been running without a major failure will be more important than which one is actually more secure, since most people, including financial executives, are unable to make a reasonable judgement about which is actually more secure.

No price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized  company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ?  )

No they don't, and they're right not to.  For most people their money is more secure with Circle or Coinbase then it would be if they tried to keep it in cold storage but messed something up.  People trust regulated, insured, american companies with good brand recognition, and lots of VC backing, and financial executives on their boards.  You and much of the libertarian cryptocurrency crowd doesn't, but most people do.

Fees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin

opposite.

Discus fish and ghash.io controls at least 40%-60% and it getting worst  (p2pool will never  be competitive with ghash.io)

This is a big issue, I agree.  It seems possible it could be solved by the likes of p2pool though, despite your assertion to the contrary.

BitshareX  has none of those problem.

It's got a much much bigger problem.  Nobody has ever hear of it (apart from hardcore cryptonerds).  And nobody cares that it is better in a whole bunch of ways that don't matter at all to the user.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 01, 2014, 10:41:41 pm
Didn't expect to have this discussion on the bitsharestalk forum, but okay...

That buys *a lot* more security than is needed.  The reality is block rewards are more a way to distribute coins at this point.  As block reward continues to halve it won't cause a huge problem for security.

The security per unit cost ratio of DPOS will always be better than POW because it is inherent in the consensus technology. Take whatever is the desirable level of security for both DACs, and it will be cheaper to provide that security on the DPOS DAC than the POW DAC (assuming irrational price speculation comes back to reality, or at least that the price speculation is equal on both DACs). In other words, during the saturation stage when adoption has saturated and there is no more inflation, the transaction fees in a POW DAC will necessarily be much higher than the transaction fees in a DPOS DAC (to provide the same level of security).

No price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized  company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ?  )

No they don't, and they're right not to.  For most people their money is more secure with Circle or Coinbase then it would be if they tried to keep it in cold storage but messed something up.  People trust regulated, insured, american companies with good brand recognition, and lots of VC backing, and financial executives on their boards.  You and much of the libertarian cryptocurrency crowd doesn't, but most people do.

Wait, are you even in favor of cryptocurrency at all? Yes of course most people on this planet don't care about cryptocurrency at the moment. That will eventually change. And when it does people will want important features like price stability, fast transaction confirmations, and less centralization (all of which BitShares provides over Bitcoin). In fact, I would argue that they won't ever be interested in cryptocurrency if it didn't have those features (well at least the first two).

Fees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin

opposite.

No, you are absolutely wrong about this. See my first point.

It's got a much much bigger problem.  Nobody has ever hear of it (apart from hardcore cryptonerds).  And nobody cares that it is better in a whole bunch of ways that don't matter at all to the user.

And there was a time when nobody ever heard of Bitcoin, or Facebook, or Google, or ... on and on and on.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 12:42:59 am
Didn't expect to have this discussion on the bitsharestalk forum, but okay...

That buys *a lot* more security than is needed.  The reality is block rewards are more a way to distribute coins at this point.  As block reward continues to halve it won't cause a huge problem for security.

The security per unit cost ratio of DPOS will always be better than POW because it is inherent in the consensus technology. Take whatever is the desirable level of security for both DACs, and it will be cheaper to provide that security on the DPOS DAC than the POW DAC (assuming irrational price speculation comes back to reality, or at least that the price speculation is equal on both DACs). In other words, during the saturation stage when adoption has saturated and there is no more inflation, the transaction fees in a POW DAC will necessarily be much higher than the transaction fees in a DPOS DAC (to provide the same level of security).

Yup.  I know that.

No price stability whatsoever(unless of course you pass by centralized  company Circus or Bitpay. Yes user care about centralize or not remember MtGox ?  )

No they don't, and they're right not to.  For most people their money is more secure with Circle or Coinbase then it would be if they tried to keep it in cold storage but messed something up.  People trust regulated, insured, american companies with good brand recognition, and lots of VC backing, and financial executives on their boards.  You and much of the libertarian cryptocurrency crowd doesn't, but most people do.

Wait, are you even in favor of cryptocurrency at all? Yes of course most people on this planet don't care about cryptocurrency at the moment. That will eventually change. And when it does people will want important features like price stability, fast transaction confirmations, and less centralization (all of which BitShares provides over Bitcoin). In fact, I would argue that they won't ever be interested in cryptocurrency if it didn't have those features (well at least the first two).

Yes I'm in favor of cryptocurrency.  Bitcoin drastically improves over legacy financial systems in transaction time, processing fees, fraud protection, freedom etc.  Those are differences that people will notice.  Bitshares makes modest improvements over Bitcoin in some areas, which people won't really notice.  (Really low fees vs. even lower fees.  Really fast transactions vs even faster transactions.  If you can accept Bitcoin transactions within a few seconds, as other have argued correctly in this thread, what difference does it ultimately make that confirmations are 10 minutes vs 10 seconds.  To the user:  none.)

Fees are likely to go bigger and bigger on bitcoin

opposite.

No, you are absolutely wrong about this. See my first point.

No you are wrong.  Your first point says transaction fees will be lower for BTSX than for BTC.  I know that.  But BTC transaction fees can still fall with adoption as the price of security is spread out among more people.

It's got a much much bigger problem.  Nobody has ever hear of it (apart from hardcore cryptonerds).  And nobody cares that it is better in a whole bunch of ways that don't matter at all to the user.

And there was a time when nobody ever heard of Bitcoin, or Facebook, or Google, or ... on and on and on.

Facebook is a good example.  Google, one of the biggest companies in the world, made it their mission to unseat Facebook.  Fail.  Because of mindshare and network effects.  A social network is only as useful as the number of your friends using it.  Same with a currency.  A currency is only as useful as the number of people you need to pay and receive payment from who use it.  Bitcoin has a huge advantage.

Look.  I currently own a greater percentage of total BTSX supply than total BTC supply, so I'd be happy for BTSX to win.  (Not only for my financial position but because I believe it is a better system.)  I just don't think the arguments put forth for why it WILL win are very convincing.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 02, 2014, 02:11:37 am
Yes I'm in favor of cryptocurrency.  Bitcoin drastically improves over legacy financial systems in transaction time, processing fees, fraud protection, freedom etc.  Those are differences that people will notice.  Bitshares makes modest improvements over Bitcoin in some areas, which people won't really notice.  (Really low fees vs. even lower fees.  Really fast transactions vs even faster transactions.  If you can accept Bitcoin transactions within a few seconds, as other have argued correctly in this thread, what difference does it ultimately make that confirmations are 10 minutes vs 10 seconds.  To the user:  none.)

You ignored the price stability and centralization arguments. Also, there is still a non-trivial risk of double spend with zero confirmation payments in Bitcoin. Given any fixed period of time, the probability of double spend is lower in DPOS than in POW. Looking at the difference in risk of double spend between BitShares X and Bitcoin in just a 20 second time period is absolutely amazing. I think this will appeal to merchants, especially since it along with price stability means they can cut out middlemen like BitPay. But fine, let's say you don't think that is a big deal. Fast transactions make the decentralized exchange possible. It would be too slow to run an exchange if the block intervals were 10 minutes. The decentralized exchange makes BitAssets and price stability possible. And of course it will be incredibly useful for later DAC functionality like trading cryptostock (remember BitShares is bigger than Bitcoin).

Also, your argument that the innovations of Bitcoin over traditional financial systems being more significant than the innovations of BitShares over Bitcoin don't make a lot of sense to me. From the perspective of an outsider in the traditional financial system, both BitShares' and Bitcoin's network effect look absolutely puny. I think it's the marginal benefit in the network effect that is going to seem insignificant to the outsider rather than the marginal benefit in the technology. If even a small fraction of outside wealth pours into BitShares (rather than Bitcoin because the technology advantages of BitShares makes it far more desirable to these outsiders), then BitShares can quickly gain network effect that rivals that of Bitcoin. So, I think it makes a lot more sense to target people who are currently outside the cryptocurrency community. And we have the technology to make it palatable to them: BitAssets with yields, TITAN, an exchange, etc.

No you are wrong.  Your first point says transaction fees will be lower for BTSX than for BTC.  I know that.  But BTC transaction fees can still fall with adoption as the price of security is spread out among more people.

The Bitcoin network currently spends approximately $500 million per year for its current level of security (based on current prices, and assuming profit margins from mining tend toward zero). And only about a $1 million per year of that is from transaction fees. This is for a market cap of approximately $5 billion. As the value of bitcoin grows, would we want more or less security protecting the network? If we want to keep the network security the same as it is today (which I think would be a bad idea if it gets really big) then you have a valid point. Eventually, as the coinbase reduces to zero, that $500 million has to come from somewhere. You need it to come from a 500x increase in total transaction fees. This shouldn't be a problem if we assume the total transaction fees accumulated grows with the transaction volume. Right now Bitcoin transaction volume is on average equal to approximately 1 tx/s. Let's say this gets to Visa/Mastercard levels (4000 tx/s). This means transaction fees could be reduced to 1/8 of their current cost (of course this analysis is not including additional costs to the servers for handling this scale, but let's consider that negligible to the cost of POW). But now do you really think it is realistic to keep the security of a potentially multiple trillion dollar network secured by only $500 million per year. If we wanted the security of Bitcoin to scale with its market cap (with the proportionality constant it has today), then at coinbase saturation and Visa/Mastercard levels of transaction volume, the Bitcoin network could only support a $40 billion market cap without needing to increase transaction fees. If it needed to get to a trillion dollar market cap with this level of security, the transaction fees would have to increase by more than an order of magnitude.

But again, maybe you think $4 billion per year of security is good enough for even a trillion dollar network. Fine, then you are correct, transaction fees don't need to increase. But so what. Why settle for mediocrity when they can get lower transaction fees with higher effective security by using DPOS. People will eventually stop being blinded by the Bitcoin delusion and realize this. I generally think people are irrational, but I don't think they are that irrational.

Facebook is a good example.  Google, one of the biggest companies in the world, made it their mission to unseat Facebook.  Fail.  Because of mindshare and network effects.  A social network is only as useful as the number of your friends using it.  Same with a currency.  A currency is only as useful as the number of people you need to pay and receive payment from who use it.  Bitcoin has a huge advantage.

Look.  I currently own a greater percentage of total BTSX supply than total BTC supply, so I'd be happy for BTSX to win.  (Not only for my financial position but because I believe it is a better system.)  I just don't think the arguments put forth for why it WILL win are very convincing.

Network effect is huge with currencies, I won't deny that. But look at the network effect of the US dollar. And yet, Bitcoin has the audacity to challenge that network effect. But you are saying it is unrealistic to expect BitShares to take on Bitcoin? I don't see why not, just like Facebook beat MySpace despite the fact that at one point in time MySpace was the place to go for a social network. And it is not impossible for a competitor to beat Facebook. Maybe it will be Google, maybe some other company, or maybe it will be a decentralized social network. Just because Facebook has over a billion users doesn't mean we will be stuck using it for the rest of eternity.

Of course, Bitcoin definitely has a huge advantage with their network effect, there is no denying that. But this space is incredibly competitive, and that coupled with the fact that nearly all Bitcoin supporters seem to be blind to the perils of POW means that a competitor like BitShares has IMHO a decent shot of growing quickly, sneaking up behind it, and eventually dethroning it. But of course I am biased.

My understanding of your position is that you believe in the technology of BitShares but are constantly questioning yourself regarding whether BTSX could succeed over BTC. I think a little bit of that doubt is a good thing. This is after all an incredibly risky investment and could blow up in all of our faces. So, as usual, it is important to not put in more than you can afford to lose. And maybe it makes sense to hedge between BTSX and BTC on the off chance that BTC users will all suddenly see the light and clone the BitShares toolkit but allocate to BTC holders. But I personally don't envision things developing that way.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Stan on October 02, 2014, 03:13:29 am
I'm not sure what this interesting discussion has to do with the OP, but I'll resurrect my 0.02 bitUSD here to enrich the volatile fuel-air mix:

http://bitshares.org/stans-thoughts-on-dpos-and-bitcoin/ (http://bitshares.org/stans-thoughts-on-dpos-and-bitcoin/)

(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Wile-E--Coyote-warner-brothers-animation-71729_446_336.jpg)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 02, 2014, 04:07:04 am
Quote from: fussyhands
Look.  I currently own a greater percentage of total BTSX supply than total BTC supply, so I'd be happy for BTSX to win.  (Not only for my financial position but because I believe it is a better system.)  I just don't think the arguments put forth for why it WILL win are very convincing.

I see your overall point and I'm glad you're asking these hard questions. You're saying the average user doesn't care about the technical details, they care about the benefits.

BTSX offers two very compelling benefits Bitcoin, by design, cannot:
The technical details may not be relevant to the end user, but they allow for these two benefits.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oldman on October 02, 2014, 04:16:45 am
TITAN, bitUSD, yield.

That is all.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: luckybit on October 02, 2014, 08:02:13 am
Perhaps you can build a delay tolerant mesh network for the "Internet of Things" with this DAC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWtRTzXJvtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RusR2PiqPs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking

Let's put CubeSats in space and use delay tolerant networking.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 08:52:13 am
Quote
I'm not sure what this interesting discussion has to do with the OP, but I'll resurrect my 0.02 bitUSD here to enrich the volatile fuel-air mix:

http://bitshares.org/stans-thoughts-on-dpos-and-bitcoin/

Wait and see what will happen when there is a Bank run in Greece, which I think will come by H1 2015 with all the political uncertainty and a new Grexit scenario from Eurozone... Cyprus bank crisis of last year will be nothing compared to what is coming and cryptos will experience the biggest pump ever. It will be bitcoin's latest pump to $2-$3k Imho before it collapses..

I just hope the biteur - bitusd market peg holds when this day comes because I need to move my fiat money asap. We need a stable finished client, some merchants to accept bitassets, fiat gateways and the rest will be history...

and to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: xeroc on October 02, 2014, 08:56:00 am
and to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...
*autsch* .. do you have any 'hard facts' on this? are they talking about this already?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 02, 2014, 09:00:17 am
Perhaps you can build a delay tolerant mesh network for the "Internet of Things" with this DAC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWtRTzXJvtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RusR2PiqPs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking

Let's put CubeSats in space and use delay tolerant networking.

Ever since hearing of a similar project for bitcoin I've been wondering about what kind of actual throughput is possible with cubesats. With gps the satellites only send their own unique signal and you triangulate those signals on the ground, but I don't know how practical it would be to try and run a payment network via satellite.

Delay-tolerant-networking is just one tiny bit of the puzzle with mesh-networks, because mesh-networks need to be more adaptable  than just the occasional broken static connection route. Ideally a mesh network should also work in isolation but also be able to reconnect and resynchronize when mesh networks (re)connect. That is not an easy thing to solve.

So far we've only talked about extending the current existing network through mesh-networking, but I'm not aware of practical solutions for a mesh network that can divide and rejoin without any issues. It takes the problem of forks in a blockchain to a whole different level where forks are allowed to live side by side and then get merged when they touch each other.

I lack the technical knowledge in this field and I can't code, so I don't know the details about what happens when a fork is resolved and what will happen to the transaction history of the smaller mesh/fork joining a larger one. You'd probably need delay tolerant blockchains. Maybe a global heartbeat where all members send a signal at regular intervals, which would make clear who is part of the currently connected  nodes on this part of a meshnetwork and store that in the collective data. Then it might be possible to fit the separate pieces of the puzzle together afterward even if those pieces have been disconnected for an extended period of time.

EDIT
and to add some more sauce to the above...wait until the Chinese government start claiming repayment of the US debt to see what will happen...
*autsch* .. do you have any 'hard facts' on this? are they talking about this already?

Seems the opinions are divided on which country will be used to cash out on the shorting of the euro, but some bankers seem to think France is the next in line after the successful attempt to make some cracks with Greece.

If France goes I think even bitEUR would use it's utility, or maybe a number of historic museums would like it. Sort of like crypto coin collectors or something.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 09:11:28 am
Seriously do you know that the US debt is $17 trillion and adding the health insurance, pensions etc it goes to +$65 trillions.. How much more debt do you think the US will be able to issue until someone (mostly Chinese) require repayment of this debt?
Greece defaulted on its debt for +300 billions. Sure % wise it is higher than it's GDP but still... we are talking about trillions in the US...

Just to show you a small idea about debt worldwide.. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

Nobody talks about these things... Greece is the bad guy since we owe more than our GDP but no one is going to question the US...yet...! I think that in a couple of years people will realise the illusion of holding Gold bars, US $, paper currencies, worthless stocks and will realise that cryptos can be more valuable in exchanging them for olive oil, food, clothes etc..
I am very pessimistic about the future. IMHO we will experience a much much bigger crisis worldwide soon that is imaginable yet..
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 02, 2014, 09:39:19 am
Seriously do you know that the US debt is $17 trillion and adding the health insurance, pensions etc it goes to +$65 trillions.. How much more debt do you think the US will be able to issue until someone (mostly Chinese) require repayment of this debt?
Greece defaulted on its debt for +300 billions. Sure % wise it is higher than it's GDP but still... we are talking about trillions in the US...

Just to show you a small idea about debt worldwide.. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

Nobody talks about these things... Greece is the bad guy since we owe more than our GDP but no one is going to question the US...yet...! I think that in a couple of years people will realise the illusion of holding Gold bars, US $, paper currencies, worthless stocks and will realise that cryptos can be more valuable in exchanging them for olive oil, food, clothes etc..
I am very pessimistic about the future. IMHO we will experience a much much bigger crisis worldwide soon that is imaginable yet..

Well they do talk about it, but proponents of the current "system" (bit of a rhetoric trick in my view, because by using the term the suggestion is made that there actually is a system) interpret the chart you just posted differently. If your currency is in the form of IOUs, then you could argue the redder your country is, the more liquid it is as well. And that's all that matters to them, throughput, and the actual numbers on either end of books seem to be just arbitrary values to them, or not their problem.

I share your pessimism though, I can't put my finger on it, but somehow I've been feeling very uncomfortable about end 2014 and the year 2015. Also doesn't help that I keep running into researches pointing to the same year as the expected turning point in the cycle, then again that might just be me being oversensitive to that particular year. But that doesn't change the fact that to me, eventhough there are people commenting on how fast crypto is moving, I'm worried that we will not make it in time.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 09:44:54 am
Quote
ut that doesn't change the fact that to me, eventhough there are people commenting on how fast crypto is moving, I'm worried that we will not make it in time.

I am worried about this as well unfortunately..
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: luckybit on October 02, 2014, 10:33:31 am
Seriously do you know that the US debt is $17 trillion and adding the health insurance, pensions etc it goes to +$65 trillions.. How much more debt do you think the US will be able to issue until someone (mostly Chinese) require repayment of this debt?
Greece defaulted on its debt for +300 billions. Sure % wise it is higher than it's GDP but still... we are talking about trillions in the US...

Just to show you a small idea about debt worldwide.. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

Nobody talks about these things... Greece is the bad guy since we owe more than our GDP but no one is going to question the US...yet...! I think that in a couple of years people will realise the illusion of holding Gold bars, US $, paper currencies, worthless stocks and will realise that cryptos can be more valuable in exchanging them for olive oil, food, clothes etc..
I am very pessimistic about the future. IMHO we will experience a much much bigger crisis worldwide soon that is imaginable yet..

Are you in debt?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: mf-tzo on October 02, 2014, 10:56:42 am
personally of course not.. I have invested in crypto how can I be in debt? :)
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 12:40:59 pm
You ignored the price stability and centralization arguments.

No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

Also, there is still a non-trivial risk of double spend with zero confirmation payments in Bitcoin. Given any fixed period of time, the probability of double spend is lower in DPOS than in POW. Looking at the difference in risk of double spend between BitShares X and Bitcoin in just a 20 second time period is absolutely amazing. I think this will appeal to merchants, especially since it along with price stability means they can cut out middlemen like BitPay.

Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register. 

But fine, let's say you don't think that is a big deal. Fast transactions make the decentralized exchange possible. It would be too slow to run an exchange if the block intervals were 10 minutes. The decentralized exchange makes BitAssets and price stability possible. And of course it will be incredibly useful for later DAC functionality like trading cryptostock (remember BitShares is bigger than Bitcoin).

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button.

Also, your argument that the innovations of Bitcoin over traditional financial systems being more significant than the innovations of BitShares over Bitcoin don't make a lot of sense to me. From the perspective of an outsider in the traditional financial system, both BitShares' and Bitcoin's network effect look absolutely puny. I think it's the marginal benefit in the network effect that is going to seem insignificant to the outsider rather than the marginal benefit in the technology. If even a small fraction of outside wealth pours into BitShares (rather than Bitcoin because the technology advantages of BitShares makes it far more desirable to these outsiders), then BitShares can quickly gain network effect that rivals that of Bitcoin. So, I think it makes a lot more sense to target people who are currently outside the cryptocurrency community. And we have the technology to make it palatable to them: BitAssets with yields, TITAN, an exchange, etc.

You overlook what is keeping Bitcoin so far in the lead despite its technical inferiority:  all that outside wealth you are hoping will close that gap is thinking the same thing I'm arguing here, i.e. Bitcoin is way ahead on network effects and none of the altcoins offer anything truly compelling to users.  They are overwhelmingly betting on the leader.  Also as far as developing infrastructure Bitcoin is 1-2 years ahread of Bitshares.  That is a long lead time.

The Bitcoin network currently spends approximately $500 million per year for its current level of security (based on current prices, and assuming profit margins from mining tend toward zero). And only about a $1 million per year of that is from transaction fees. This is for a market cap of approximately $5 billion. As the value of bitcoin grows, would we want more or less security protecting the network? If we want to keep the network security the same as it is today (which I think would be a bad idea if it gets really big) then you have a valid point. Eventually, as the coinbase reduces to zero, that $500 million has to come from somewhere. You need it to come from a 500x increase in total transaction fees. This shouldn't be a problem if we assume the total transaction fees accumulated grows with the transaction volume. Right now Bitcoin transaction volume is on average equal to approximately 1 tx/s. Let's say this gets to Visa/Mastercard levels (4000 tx/s). This means transaction fees could be reduced to 1/8 of their current cost (of course this analysis is not including additional costs to the servers for handling this scale, but let's consider that negligible to the cost of POW). But now do you really think it is realistic to keep the security of a potentially multiple trillion dollar network secured by only $500 million per year. If we wanted the security of Bitcoin to scale with its market cap (with the proportionality constant it has today), then at coinbase saturation and Visa/Mastercard levels of transaction volume, the Bitcoin network could only support a $40 billion market cap without needing to increase transaction fees. If it needed to get to a trillion dollar market cap with this level of security, the transaction fees would have to increase by more than an order of magnitude.

$500m is plenty of security for a trillion dollar network, given that the benefits of attacking are so limited.  All it really gets you is the ability to perform a denial of service against the network.  Nobody would spend that kind of money to double spend small transactions, and double spending large transactions will just land you in jail.  Furthermore it will shatter confidence in the network and destroy your astronomical investment in specialized mining hardware.  The numbers just don't add up for a criminal organization.  For a hostile state... well what keeps them from printing a 100 trillion dollars worth of USD and dumping it on the world?  There are other incentives not to attack the world financial system...

But again, maybe you think $4 billion per year of security is good enough for even a trillion dollar network. Fine, then you are correct, transaction fees don't need to increase. But so what. Why settle for mediocrity when they can get lower transaction fees with higher effective security by using DPOS. People will eventually stop being blinded by the Bitcoin delusion and realize this. I generally think people are irrational, but I don't think they are that irrational.

*I* wouldn't settle for mediocrity.  But mainstream users don't give a shit about the technical details of the security, and even if they cared, they wouldn't have the capacity to make an informed decision.

Network effect is huge with currencies, I won't deny that. But look at the network effect of the US dollar. And yet, Bitcoin has the audacity to challenge that network effect. But you are saying it is unrealistic to expect BitShares to take on Bitcoin?

Bitcoin offers HUGE advantages over dollar denominated systems in terms of transaction fees, speed, security, etc.  If it has a chance, which is debatable, it is because of these paradigm shifting advantages.  Bitshares doesn't really offer much of any user tangible advantage over Bitcoin.

My understanding of your position is that you believe in the technology of BitShares but are constantly questioning yourself regarding whether BTSX could succeed over BTC.

That's right.  I want Bitshares to succeed because it's really similar to a system I designed on paper 3 years ago but didn't bother to make.  That is what got me excited about Bitshares.  Its technical superiority.  But the more I think about it, the less it seems to matter.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 02, 2014, 01:08:33 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 01:25:22 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 02, 2014, 01:49:43 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 02:11:31 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: pc on October 02, 2014, 03:01:27 pm
Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved.  Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...

You have skipped a much bigger problem of mesh networks. They can only operate efficiently if the principle of locality applies to the nodes' communication behaviour. Otherwise, the nodes closest to the high speed internet access have to carry not only their own traffic, but also the traffic of all the other nodes in their downline. Unfortunately, internet traffic today does not meet that criteria.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 03:21:37 pm
Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved.  Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...

You have skipped a much bigger problem of mesh networks. They can only operate efficiently if the principle of locality applies to the nodes' communication behaviour. Otherwise, the nodes closest to the high speed internet access have to carry not only their own traffic, but also the traffic of all the other nodes in their downline. Unfortunately, internet traffic today does not meet that criteria.

In practice I don't think that is a big problem.  Modern WiFi can connect at a gigabit, 1000Mbs, whereas most broadband is stuck below 100Mbs, frequently well below that at 50Mbs, 25Mbs or even 10Mbs.

That means there is a lot of room for inefficiency in the last mile WiFi mesh network before it becomes the bottleneck.  90% of the throughput of a 1000Mbs connection could be wasted with inefficient mesh routing and the bottleneck would still be the 50Mbs broadband connection.

And even at 50Mbs, most people's broadband connections sit idle 95% of the day.  Even when they are actively web surfing the connections are mostly idle.  (The only time they might be maxing out their connection over a long period of time is when they are streaming movies or downloading torrents.)  So there is A LOT of bandwidth to share.

Given the above, it's not clear to me how inefficiency due to low locality will be a problem.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oco101 on October 02, 2014, 03:39:43 pm
Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register.

A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button

Unless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.
Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found.  A guy for China or Greece has no access to it .  Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ? 

You seems to underestimate the power of  bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without  the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees.  This has so much value even without yield. 

 Bitshare X versatility it is unparalleled because is decentralized and is universal(no Circle need it). Anything could be pegged that's extremely practical, imagine some things are only of interest in some country if there is enough demand you can put it on the market right way, with  no wait.

If you invest in bitcoin you expect to make money if the price it goes up. If you invest in Bitshare X  you can make money on so many ways.

Bitcoin stopped innovating a long time ago. Bitshares X is just getting started.

And yes P2Pool could help Bitcoin but very unlikely to happen : https://blockchain.info/pools

So yeah we don't really know how all will pan out but I believe there are enough advantages in favor of Bithsare X  that, even for ignorant user perspective, are enough to make it more attractive then bitcoin ecosystem.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 02, 2014, 03:43:58 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:32:03 pm
Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register.

A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.

Ummm...no.  Bitpay is free:  https://bitpay.com/pricing.  A $300/month business account adds *phone* support.  I'm pretty sure Bitshares X will not offer phone support for free.

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button
Unless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.
Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found.  A guy for China or Greece has no access to it . 

Take a look at the "Locks" that coinapult offers today:  https://coinapult.com/locks/info.  Circle has discussed adding a similar feature.  Circle is going international:  http://www.coindesk.com/circle-global-launch/.

Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ? 

I think users are very comfortable with the idea of insured deposits.  Remember: libertarian cryptonerds are not the mainstream.  Most people just want something easy to use with a stamp of approval.

You seems to underestimate the power of  bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without  the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees.  This has so much value even without yield. 

Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees.  When margins are only 2-3% to begin with, those 2-3% processing fees can make a HUGE difference to profitability.  To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

Average Joe will use Bitcoin to get those discounts.  And also to feel safer from identity theft.

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Eliminating the global 3% tax on card payments seems important.  Eliminating fees for stock trading... not so much.  I have a tradeking account.  In my whole life I've probably paid less than a few hundred dollars in trading fees.  Getting rid of those isn't transformative disruption.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oco101 on October 02, 2014, 07:21:16 pm
Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

Guess what we already have banks and money  too. Go get yourself an bank account ......Bitcoin what the heck we need that!!!!
Since when you are trading CNY in stock/commodity exchange ??
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: nomoreheroes7 on October 02, 2014, 07:34:52 pm
Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

Guess what we already have banks too. Go get yourself an bank account ......Bitcoin what the heck we need that!!!!
Since when you are trading CNY in stock/commodity exchange ??

Not to mention the fees for e*trade:

Min. Initial Deposit
 $500.00 

Stock Trading
 $9.99 per trade
 $7.99 per trade, if you make over 600 trades per year 

Options Trading
 $9.99 per trade + $0.75 per contract
 $7.99 per trade + $0.75 per contract, if you make over 50 trades per year 

Pretty sure BTSX would have that beat.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 02, 2014, 07:37:09 pm
I just don't understand your point of view at all.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees

To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 02, 2014, 08:58:18 pm
I just don't understand your point of view at all.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees

To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.

Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people.  BUT, credit cards already offer that!  So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument.  Maybe there won't be mass adoption...

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.

Well all the VC money is flowing to web wallets (Circle, Coinbase, Xapos) so there are a lot of experienced people who totally disagree with you, including me.  Most people don't care about being their own bank.  In fact they would prefer not to be.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project.  I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies...  In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: oco101 on October 02, 2014, 09:43:28 pm
Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

I tend to agree that to have mass adoption it will be very difficult indeed, you right about that.
I think people are coming wherever there are money to be made. That's one of the reasons why, I'm thinking, the market behind BitshareX can attract a lots of people, maybe not the average Joe not at the beginning at least. One step at the time. Forex is 5 trillions dollars, how many average Joe do you know that are trading there ?

There is one thing tough that could attract masses of people and that is Bitshare Music. In my opinion this is the blockchain that could get massive adoption right away. Average Joe will not need to deal with bitcoin,btsx, blockchain cryposuff he'll just use it.  Bitshare Music it is the perfect way to educate people to the beauty of blockchain .  That of course if Bitshare Music would be working as intended, if the execution it perfect and if there will be enough money after IPO that they could deliver the best experience for the user. 
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Method-X on October 03, 2014, 03:11:19 am
Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people.  BUT, credit cards already offer that!  So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument.  Maybe there won't be mass adoption...

Bitcoin isn't meant for our moms or our grandparents. To them, it offers no value. I think where you and I differ is our view on how mass adoption will play out. Crypto is ideally suited for the black and grey markets. Hell, I was introduced to Bitcoin while trying to buy LSD online. I remember thinking to myself "this is totally going to be the undergrounds currency of choice". Turns out black market adoption wasn't what I had anticipated because of volatility and the lack of privacy.

The size of the global black market is estimated to be 1,829 billion dollars per year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market#Size_of_the_global_black_markets). And then theres remittances, the "unbanked billions", swiss bank accounts aren't what they used to be and a host of other use cases Bitcoin would be absolutely ideal for, if only it weren't for its massive volatility.

All the things we thought Bitcoin would be great at but wasn't, suddenly make sense with BitUSD.

Most people don't care about being their own bank.  In fact they would prefer not to be.

This is more an argument against crypto in general. For the above mentioned reasons, I think there are a ton of people who DO want to be their own bank. And when a financial crisis hits, the likes of which the words has never seen, maybe even mom and grandpa will see the value in being their own bank.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Seems we do agree on something then; crypto sure ain't for mom and dad. Black markets, grey markets, remittances, unbanked, swiss bank accounts, etc, etc, etc. There will be plenty of demand for a stable and private crypto.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: arhag on October 03, 2014, 04:35:49 am
Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

I think I finally understand your point of view. You don't care about Bitcoin or blockchain technology at all. You might still care about cryptocurrency in the sense of the push rather than pull model (meaning you sign specific transactions for specific amounts rather than giving away the keys to the kingdom with our current system of credit cards and ACH). What you want is essentially DPOS but where the number of delegates is exactly 1 (the corporation/government owning the system) and they cannot be voted in/out (hey that means you get faster confirmation times and better scalability than BitShares X!  :P). Decentralization? Who needs it (according to you). Either you personally don't care about decentralization of power, or you believe the masses will never care about it despite the benefits it provides.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project.  I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies...  In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).

If you truly believe the masses won't ever care about decentralization of power, then yes you should get out of all crypto markets entirely (at least for the  long-term, you might still be able to make some money day trading if that is your thing).

Edit: By the way, here is the message we need to get out to the masses in order to get them interested in blockchain-based decentralized autonomous systems implementing cryptoassets:
Quote
The banking system is playing dangerous games with your wealth. We cannot rely on governments to properly regulate them because the governments are corrupt and in the pockets of these rich powerful banks. And yet, we are currently dependent on these banks to just live our lives and do basic business in the world. Getting out this system and just using cash is not a practical alternative in this new digital world; and besides that still is exposed to the risk of the central banks mismanaging the money supply (and I already discussed that we don't have good control over the corrupted governments in order to maintain control over the central bank policy). We, the people, need a good alternative. An alternative that by design is decentralized and therefore difficult to corrupt. An alternative that has important rules governing the financial system encoded in incorruptible software, and with astronomically expensive barriers to change those software rules without the consent of the masses. Blockchain technology provides that alternative. And out of all implementations that exist today, BitShares is the only one that provides adequate decentralization for extremely low cost, and it also provides: many essential features you are already used to with the current financial system such as price stability, fast transactions, and security of your holdings (eventually provided via multisig security companies); all the great capabilities other cryptocurrencies also have such as the ability to choose the arbiter (via multisig) who decides on charge backs in case one party failed to deliver on their promise, the ability to make transactions without having to give all your private transaction details to a third-party like a credit/debit card company, the ability to take back control of your wealth even if the third-party security providers disappear, and the ability to make payments to individuals/organizations you want without easy restriction by governments (obviously, the government can technically make anything illegal even if it is difficult to enforce, so act at your own risk); and finally, certain features currently unique to BitShares such as storing the value of a physical asset, like gold or oil, without counterparty risk, and high yields on non-volatile currencies just sitting in your digital vault (much higher than the interest rates you can get from your checking account in a traditional bank).

If you still think the masses won't eventually care about adopting cryptocurrencies (and in particular ones implementing BitShares technology, regardless of who the equity is distributed to), then I have nothing else to say to you. If that is how you think, then the rational strategy from your perspective really is to just get out of the crypto markets.

Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: JoeyD on October 03, 2014, 11:32:04 am
I have to correct my earlier statement about bitcoincard having halted development. I just read an update by the dev-team also responsible for that project that that project is actually in the final stages where all hardware is built and they are in the testing/tweaking phase.

I also was not clear that they are the same devs responsible for the mycelium wallet and will probably use mobile phones for their meshnetwork projects as well.

Interesting project to keep track off, irrespective if they succeed or fail, it will provide some useful insights.

But carry on, I did not mean to interrupt the OT-discussion.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: luckybit on October 03, 2014, 12:04:49 pm
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

People need money. BitUSD adoption can occur easily if you start paying your employees in BitUSD. Now they have BitUSD and no reason to put it in a centralized bank.

Just start finding excuses to give people BitUSD if you want it adopted. Stop expecting people to buy it.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: 麥可貓 on October 15, 2014, 12:03:32 pm
in this article from WSJ blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/10/10/weekend-read-the-imminent-decentralized-computing-revolution/), the mesh network technology is mentioned as important as blockchain technology. If bitshares can have them both, I think this would be the killer feature that is superior than any competitiors.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: monsterer on October 15, 2014, 12:34:40 pm
Have you considered the technical issues at hand with this idea?

Most existing wifi routers would need a firmware flash to support the correct mode on the NIC. I'm pretty such most mobile phone do not support this either by default.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: 麥可貓 on October 15, 2014, 03:00:44 pm
Have you considered the technical issues at hand with this idea?

Most existing wifi routers would need a firmware flash to support the correct mode on the NIC. I'm pretty such most mobile phone do not support this either by default.

Routers did requires some customization, but I think it won't be a problem if there is a financial incentive, especially there are already many linux-based routers that can use free firmwares like totmato (http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato), dd-wrt (http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index), etc that can add any functions you want.

For smartphones, iOS 7.0+ and android 4.0+ already have features required to implement mesh networking in you apps, and that's one of the reasons why apps like firechat (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firechat/id719829352) are so popular these days.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: monsterer on October 15, 2014, 03:58:15 pm
For smartphones, iOS 7.0+ and android 4.0+ already have features required to implement mesh networking in you apps, and that's one of the reasons why apps like firechat (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firechat/id719829352) are so popular these days.

I don't think firechat uses Mesh protocol - it might be some other technique like ad-hoc?
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: 麥可貓 on October 15, 2014, 04:42:36 pm
For smartphones, iOS 7.0+ and android 4.0+ already have features required to implement mesh networking in you apps, and that's one of the reasons why apps like firechat (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firechat/id719829352) are so popular these days.

I don't think firechat uses Mesh protocol - it might be some other technique like ad-hoc?

Yes, it is using mesh network technology, from here (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/29/352476454/how-hong-kong-protesters-are-connecting-without-cell-or-wi-fi-networks):
Quote
As throngs of pro-democracy protesters continue to organize in Hong Kong's central business district, many of them are messaging one another through a network that doesn't require cell towers or Wi-Fi nodes. They're using an app called FireChat that launched in March and is underpinned by mesh networking , which lets phones unite to form a temporary Internet.

Furthermore, the company developed firechat also has another app called opengarden that provide mesh networking for desktops (Win/OSX) (https://opengarden.com/apps).
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: monsterer on October 15, 2014, 05:05:33 pm
Yes, it is using mesh network technology, from here (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/29/352476454/how-hong-kong-protesters-are-connecting-without-cell-or-wi-fi-networks):

I was looking here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireChat

Quote
Firechat appears to work in a similar way to the much more mature IEEE 802.11s mesh wifi protocol
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 15, 2014, 07:13:27 pm
Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

I think I finally understand your point of view. You don't care about Bitcoin or blockchain technology at all. You might still care about cryptocurrency in the sense of the push rather than pull model (meaning you sign specific transactions for specific amounts rather than giving away the keys to the kingdom with our current system of credit cards and ACH). What you want is essentially DPOS but where the number of delegates is exactly 1 (the corporation/government owning the system) and they cannot be voted in/out (hey that means you get faster confirmation times and better scalability than BitShares X!  :P). Decentralization? Who needs it (according to you). Either you personally don't care about decentralization of power, or you believe the masses will never care about it despite the benefits it provides.

I think decentralization is essential for a *cryptocurrency* to gain adoption.  But for a fiat currency (like USD) or for a bank, users don't much care.  I'm not that concerned about decentralization of power in regards to USD.  USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government.  It's only the libertarian ideologues who are motivated by decentralization, because their eyes start to bleed every time they have to pay their tax bills.  I'm not one of those.  What I like about cryptocurrency is the technological barriers it can help us over come.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Stan on October 15, 2014, 10:49:05 pm
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 15, 2014, 10:54:30 pm
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

 +5% +5% funniest sentence ever!
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: lovejoy on October 15, 2014, 11:02:05 pm
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

 +5% +5% +5%
LOL

I can't resist: The truest words from Alan Greenspan ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGy-gTksnII
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 16, 2014, 02:26:29 pm
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line.  This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable.  The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.

But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: 麥可貓 on October 17, 2014, 05:08:22 am
Some people is trying to bring mesh networking to bitcoin:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-wi-fi-system-enables-payments-sharing-internet/

Quote
It seems one of the long awaited “killer apps” of Bitcoin is almost here. A new video on YouTube shows off a Bitcoin Wi-Fi hotspot that can receive Bitcoin payments.

This means that anyone with a connection to the Internet could soon be able to share their connection with complete strangers in exchange for bitcoins. Although the demo of the concept in the video is quite basic, it gives us a glimpse of how Bitcoin may be able to fuel the mesh networks of the future.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: lakerta06 on October 17, 2014, 07:08:18 am
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line.  This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable.  The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.

But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.

I actually think you are trolling.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: fussyhands on October 17, 2014, 10:27:33 am
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line.  This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable.  The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.

But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.

I actually think you are trolling.

Nope.  I'm just not deluded.

I've actually had people on this message board tell me that the buying power of gold is not extremely volatile!!!  All it takes is a 10 second Google search to see how absurd that is.

That's a special kind of delusion.  The religiously motivated kind.  In this case is the religion of libertarianism.
Title: Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
Post by: lovejoy on October 17, 2014, 06:08:30 pm
Some people is trying to bring mesh networking to bitcoin:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-wi-fi-system-enables-payments-sharing-internet/

Quote
It seems one of the long awaited “killer apps” of Bitcoin is almost here. A new video on YouTube shows off a Bitcoin Wi-Fi hotspot that can receive Bitcoin payments.

This means that anyone with a connection to the Internet could soon be able to share their connection with complete strangers in exchange for bitcoins. Although the demo of the concept in the video is quite basic, it gives us a glimpse of how Bitcoin may be able to fuel the mesh networks of the future.

Awesome!  This is along the lines of what was suggested in the OP.  How to implement the same concept in BTS or BitUSD?