Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2021, 03:28:50 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions  (Read 1808 times)
Nagle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
February 20, 2014, 02:28:40 AM
 #21

As a Bitcoin network, packet forwarding ought to cost some small fee, paid in Bitcoins. The problem is that the Bitcoin system chokes on micropayments. But think about that as an idea for congestion control. Maybe you have to do some proof of work to send packets.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Krellan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 10:11:17 AM
 #22

I've been thinking about this one for some time, and I have an early proposal that I'd like to flesh out with the brainiacs to see if there are any glaring errors that I've made, before I make a formal purposal to the FCC.  No, I'm not joking.

Nice!  I thought about "Bitcoin over radio" as well.  Didn't get to the point of deciding exactly which frequencies or modes would be best for the task, though.  Just thought about the general idea, using the model of a ham radio repeater that serves a given geographical region.

The idea is to have some way of ensuring Bitcoin transactions can still be made, even if the Internet is down/unavailable/suppressed in the region.  It would work similar to a ham radio repeater, many of which already support various digital modes.

The repeater (good radio station on a mountaintop or something like that, so it has good reach) would be the only node that would require Internet connectivity.  It would have an output frequency (always transmitting), and an input frequency (always receiving).

The repeater would broadcast the blockchain as it came in, on its output frequency.  The repeater would also broadcast local transactions that have not yet been confirmed, to acknowledge them.

Individual users would transmit to the repeater, on its input frequency, the transaction they wish to make.  Only the repeater needs to receive the transmission, other individual users don't need to, as long as everybody remains within range of the repeater.  As with traditional ham radio, this lowers the cost dramatically and makes it easier to use, as only the repeaters need to have really good antenna locations, as users can reach other users through the repeater.

If the Bitcoin node at the repeater deemed that transaction to be acceptable (stored it in mempool and relayed it to other nodes over the Internet), then that transaction would be rebroadcast on the output of the repeater, so that all within radio range would know it, as well as over the Internet.  Thus, the sender of the transaction would get acknowledgement that it had been accepted.

If there is enough downtime between blocks, the repeater would rebroadcast historical blocks, so that anybody who missed a block due to static/interference or whatever could have another chance to stay fully synchronized.

An additional sophistication could be to add the ability to subscribe to addresses of interest (using filters for privacy), so that unconfirmed transactions matching those filters would also be broadcast on the radio, not just blocks.  This would provide faster notification of incoming transactions, without having to wait for them to appear in a block, similar to outgoing transactions.

The idea is to have the ability to transact by Bitcoin be very survivable.  If the traditional Internet connections are knocked out, either by disaster or intentionally by government trying to do suppression/censorship, the ability to do Bitcoin by radio could be very useful.

Josh

1JUZr4TZ5zuB4WdEv4mrhZMaM7yttpJvLG Smiley
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1058



View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 10:14:16 AM
 #23

http://bitcoincard.org/product/

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 22, 2014, 12:23:23 AM
 #24


Yeah, that video has been there for years.  I've been stalling because I was hoping it would amount to more than vaporware.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 22, 2014, 12:24:14 AM
 #25

As a Bitcoin network, packet forwarding ought to cost some small fee, paid in Bitcoins. The problem is that the Bitcoin system chokes on micropayments. But think about that as an idea for congestion control. Maybe you have to do some proof of work to send packets.

I've thought about very low value bitcoin tipping for forwarding, but I don't know how to do it.  Any suggestions?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 22, 2014, 12:29:04 AM
 #26

I've been thinking about this one for some time, and I have an early proposal that I'd like to flesh out with the brainiacs to see if there are any glaring errors that I've made, before I make a formal purposal to the FCC.  No, I'm not joking.

Nice!  I thought about "Bitcoin over radio" as well.  Didn't get to the point of deciding exactly which frequencies or modes would be best for the task, though.  Just thought about the general idea, using the model of a ham radio repeater that serves a given geographical region.

The idea is to have some way of ensuring Bitcoin transactions can still be made, even if the Internet is down/unavailable/suppressed in the region.  It would work similar to a ham radio repeater, many of which already support various digital modes.

The repeater (good radio station on a mountaintop or something like that, so it has good reach) would be the only node that would require Internet connectivity.  It would have an output frequency (always transmitting), and an input frequency (always receiving).


This doesn't need that, as the rules of the machine can determine when and under what circumstances the datagram is repeated.  Similar to how packet radio works, only slower.

Quote
The idea is to have the ability to transact by Bitcoin be very survivable.  If the traditional Internet connections are knocked out, either by disaster or intentionally by government trying to do suppression/censorship, the ability to do Bitcoin by radio could be very useful.


It'd be usefull anyway, but particularly during a Internet blackout of a limited term.  If the Internet is permnently and irreversablely destroyed, Bitcoin won't work anymore; but if that were to ever happen, I think I might have bigger problems.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Nagle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2014, 02:53:37 AM
 #27

As a Bitcoin network, packet forwarding ought to cost some small fee, paid in Bitcoins. The problem is that the Bitcoin system chokes on micropayments. But think about that as an idea for congestion control. Maybe you have to do some proof of work to send packets.

I've thought about very low value bitcoin tipping for forwarding, but I don't know how to do it.  Any suggestions?
The problem is keeping the accounting traffic from exceeding the useful traffic. If each packet is billed separately, the accounting traffic is huge, much bigger than the useful traffic. The usual solutions are to have virtual circuit metering (like X.25 and cellular telephony) or end-link metering (like DSL and cable modem connections.) You can meter "flows" (as in what's now called "software defined networking"), but that requires more central control, like the old Telenet system. It's hard to do in an open mesh network.

Keeping someone from hogging the network, though, is quite feasible, and the mesh network people have looked at that problem. Congestion control is statistical; it doesn't have to be perfectly accurate. If you bill, you have to get it right, which is harder.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!