How do we deal with an internet blackout?

[phatsphere]

has someone actual experience with byzantinium linux? -> http://project-byzantium.org/

I don't know how robust it actually is, but i could envision that there could be an bitcoind installed and ready to fire up.

[1714663628]

1714663628

[1714663628]

1714663628

[1714663628]

1714663628

[cypherdoc]

does anyone else see the irony of the State being actively involved in developing the very tools that will eventually undermine the immense power they so lust?  the Internet itself was developed by the military in conjunction with academia, Tor was developed by the Dept of the Navy, and now NATO is developing the Internet in a Suitcase?  no wonder i'm so bullish on Bitcoin.

Digging their own graves. Delicious, isn't it?

I'd call it suspicious and after reading that Obama bill for meshnet hardware to support rebel com's in the event of an internet blackout... does it make sense to give away tools that could later be used against you? It only makes sense if you have something to counter that system.

have u heard of Saddam Hussein?

[MoonShadow]

has there been any larger test cases for a mesh net ?

Yes, and there is an org that is doing testing of a wireless mesh WAN, although I can't think of the name just now.  I believe they are working in Arizona right now, but they already have a nationally allocated frequency band license from the FCC, so this is no fly by night operation.

Sounds like Free Network Foundation.   They have a nationwide license for 3.6 GHz  (for backhaul of a Kilometer-wide range).

Yeah, that's it.

In addition, if a link were to exclude whole blocks, the transaction traffic that bitcoin produces isn't particularly burdensome.  A classic POTS link using old modems, or simply just a pair of wires, could keep the bitcoin network from splitting.  Most of the time, even 6 blocks and hour wouldn't be much of a burden for a modem connection right now.  And many people would be surprised what modern hams can do with shortwave transcievers connected to sound cards.

In the end, a relatively small usb drive that crosses the divide every now and then would keep things from getting to far out of synch.  We tend to forget that there are other ways to move data than the Internet.

[MoonShadow]

Would there be a good option for higher speeds over shorter distances?

Define higher speeds and shorter distances.  Generally speaking, the shorter distance, the higher the bandwidth that can be practially maintained.

[cypherdoc]

EDIT: Was way off topic with that, sry. Not sure on your meaning about Saddam.

Saddam was the US's tool against Iran in the Iran/Iraq War that went on for years and killed thousands of Muslims.  they supported him with all the finest weapons.  and then looked what happened.  how many trillions did we waste on invading Iraq?

[MoonShadow]

Would there be a good option for higher speeds over shorter distances?

Define higher speeds and shorter distances.  Generally speaking, the shorter distance, the higher the bandwidth that can be practially maintained.

About 500 meter to 5 kilometer distances, I live in a rural area and wondering how they could be implemented in one.

It's not difficult to create a point-to-point wifi link using beam antennas this way, if there is a line of sight.  Non-line-of-sight systems would need to be slower, require special infrastructure, require a ham license or some combination of these.  Dash7 is good to a klick, and meshes by design, but is significantly slower than wifi.  I'm still waiting for an android phone to become available with a built-in Dash7 transceiver, and then I'm upgrading.  Samsung has given me some lip service on this one, but the rest of the phone manufacters just ignore me.

[BkkCoins]

does anyone else see the irony of the State being actively involved in developing the very tools that will eventually undermine the immense power they so lust?  the Internet itself was developed by the military in conjunction with academia, Tor was developed by the Dept of the Navy, and now NATO is developing the Internet in a Suitcase?  no wonder i'm so bullish on Bitcoin.

Digging their own graves. Delicious, isn't it?

I'd call it suspicious and after reading that Obama bill for meshnet hardware to support rebel com's in the event of an internet blackout... does it make sense to give away tools that could later be used against you? It only makes sense if you have something to counter that system.

It also makes sense if you're supremely confident that your own side is "right" and could never be attacked from within, or you believed that it would be so small that you have the state apparatus to deal with anything like that easily enough. The media is already well controlled so that any weirdos with conspiracy theories are immediately discredited.

The first wave of defense against Bitcoin will be to turn the public against it with media messages. My guess is that CP and Terrorism will be the two main prongs of that. I don't think they worry about mesh networks, or they won't until they are even considering shutting down the net.

[miscreanity]

... does it make sense to give away tools that could later be used against you? It only makes sense if you have something to counter that system.

It does when it makes sense to use every tool available to ensure success. Would you game the voting system to secure your reelection if there would be no repercussions?

Or maybe to make sure that access to natural resources remains in place...

Providing tools might not be a choice.

[interlagos]

... Tor given away, sha, now meshnets, maybe handing out freedom is part of the masterplan but it doesn't fit in well with the rest of the script...

They are bored with being unchallenged and therefore setting up the playground for the next generation games. I don't think people in the intelligence and military circles are concerned about survival, they like to play games with very advanced toys, but they need to find the opponent first.

The other way to look at it is that military is tired of being at the mercy of central banks and they thought: "Hey, we're smarter than those guys... why work for them when we can create a better system?"
There are also white hats in any three letter agency, I'd bet.

[mintymark]

The internet blackout in Syria got me thinking about this too.

I see two possibilities. A transmitter could be set up that continiously broadcasts the block chain. Several of them in different places perhaps. They could be jammed, or falsefied so perhaps more than one would be needed. Its possible this could be even on the longwave band, or on something more modern like encrypted CDMA on a band of frequencies. As well as current transactions, blockchain history would also be periodically transmitted, perhaps using a special protocol that was able to transmit current and historical data simultaneously.

This gives you the ability to receive and verify reception of bitcoins, but not initiate transactions.

To initiate transactions there are several possibilities that I see.

a) Tempory and expensive satellite phone connection.

b) Possible use of ham radio or phone to get a trusted 3rd party to send your bitcoins to a number of smaller 1 use accounts. The private keys to these could then be passed to others to make a transaction. They have to empty the accounts in your presence so that they know you cannot using similar methods. Not great but possible. This is for the future not now though, if we decided to do this.

c) Transactions using other ultra low bandwith mesage systems (eg carrier pidgeon, SMS, air mail letter) and 3rd parties, trusted or untrusted. This in conjunction with b)

d) Mesh networks, which will eventually become efficient, cheap and ubiquitous in countries like Syria. But this is for the future, not now, but will certainly happen.

Thats my take.

Is it needed? I would say certainly yes, it will become increasingly common and easy for governments to 'black out' the internet when something they dont like happens.

[2112]

A transmitter could be set up that continiously broadcasts the block chain. Several of them in different places perhaps. They could be jammed, or falsefied so perhaps more than one would be needed. Its possible this could be even on the longwave band, or on something more modern like encrypted CDMA on a band of frequencies. As well as current transactions, blockchain history would also be periodically transmitted, perhaps using a special protocol that was able to transmit current and historical data simultaneously.

Moon bounce is the word. Let them shoot the Moon down to disable the radio and laser links!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92781.msg1024491#msg1024491

Support the free trade on Earth by banking on the Moon!

[MoonShadow]

The internet blackout in Syria got me thinking about this too.

I see two possibilities. A transmitter could be set up that continiously broadcasts the block chain. Several of them in different places perhaps. They could be jammed, or falsefied so perhaps more than one would be needed. Its possible this could be even on the longwave band, or on something more modern like encrypted CDMA on a band of frequencies. As well as current transactions, blockchain history would also be periodically transmitted, perhaps using a special protocol that was able to transmit current and historical data simultaneously.

Shortwave DRM can do that, no problem.

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

So could a bit of rented digital satillite downlink once each day, such as is used to deliver daily educational shows to distant elementary schools.  Of course, then someone needs the sat dish and receiver/decoder; while DRM just needs a quality shortwave receiver that can be plugged into the sound port of a computer.

[miscreanity]

Moon bounce is the word. Let them shoot the Moon down to disable the radio and laser links!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92781.msg1024491#msg1024491

Support the free trade on Earth by banking off the Moon!

FTFY

[miscreanity]

A good synopsis provided by Trace Mayer. Quoted below with links added.

One of the most remarkable aspects of Bitcoin is its censorship resistance.

First, any bitcoins stored in the blockchain will be safe. Private keys can be created extremely easily and securely using tools like www.brainwallet.org (the code is open-source and can be downloaded so an Internet connection is not needed if one prepares before hand by making a brainwallet and establishing the 'firstbits' for easy payments).

Second, is the ability to transfer bitcoins and use them as a currency. This is where Bitcoin's censorship resistance takes on Godzilla like attributes compared to alternatives like cash or gold which can exist only in one place at one time and are easily identified due to their physical nature.

Using the source code from brainwallet.org it is possible to generate Bitcoin transactions offline. Then all that is required is to broadcast the transaction to the network.

Jack mentions a few of the great alternatives like the mesh net, bitcoincard, etc. A local mesh net could be setup and cover a large distance, many square miles, and there would only need to be one connection to the worldwide Internet and transactions could be submitted and processed. They could also be collected and batched; this would allow trade to take place and eventually be settled. Because Bitcoin transactions are small, usually less than 1,000 bytes which is tiny, they can easily be submitted via an Iridium phone or via satellite.

Third, Bitcoin coupled with some of the innovations in Open Transactions, www.monetas.net, and you could have a very powerful way to route around the politicians and Praetorian Guard. Bitcoin is already being largely used as a 'settlement currency' in a lot of cases in conjunction with Open Transactions.

For an overview of Open Transactions watch this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfhbjkge4fs

So, in conclusion, Yes, it would be inconvenient if the Internet were drastically limited by State actors. Bitcoin could still be used pretty easily if one were prepared (had brainwallet.org source-code and an Iridium phone). In my opinion, the main problems would not be with using Bitcoin but the general economic environment of the area.

[hardcore-fs]

The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out. Though if you are talking about blacking out access to the Internet, then I guess that's a possibility. In that case, electronic bitcoin transaction will be impossible, though physical bitcoins can still be used as cash.

Nonsense!!!!!

War, is one example.

[MoonShadow]

The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out. Though if you are talking about blacking out access to the Internet, then I guess that's a possibility. In that case, electronic bitcoin transaction will be impossible, though physical bitcoins can still be used as cash.

Nonsense!!!!!

War, is one example.

An example of what?

[hardcore-fs]

The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out. Though if you are talking about blacking out access to the Internet, then I guess that's a possibility. In that case, electronic bitcoin transaction will be impossible, though physical bitcoins can still be used as cash.

Nonsense!!!!!

War, is one example.

An example of what?

"The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out."

1. The internet was not invented for that reason.
2. "it can not be blacked out", war is an example of it being blacked out, either in part of in full.

[cbeast]

The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out. Though if you are talking about blacking out access to the Internet, then I guess that's a possibility. In that case, electronic bitcoin transaction will be impossible, though physical bitcoins can still be used as cash.

Nonsense!!!!!

War, is one example.

An example of what?

"The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out."

1. The internet was not invented for that reason.
2. "it can not be blacked out", war is an example of it being blacked out, either in part of in full.

Correct. The "Internet" was not created to avoid being blacked out. ArpaNet was invented to avoid being blacked out. The Internet was built upon ArpaNet though and serves the same function.

[Rassah]

2. "it can not be blacked out", war is an example of it being blacked out, either in part of in full.

Low tech war, like those waged by third world dictators, can black it out partially, and even then only temporarily. High tech war would only strengthen the internet, since it is used to communicate with troops, collect and disperse intelligence, and control remote war machines. Any threat to the internet during war would get first attention, and would be strongly defended against; defences which will become public again once the war ends. Unless you're talking about nuclear war that wipes out most of the population (or a zombie apacolypse  ), but radioactive mutants and zombies have no use for internets, so...

[MoonShadow]

The first casualty of war is the truth, therefore any source that can offer truth must be removed.

No doubt some will try.  I question their practical effectiveness.