Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#81

Post by bigiain »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #53

A fascinating idea, I wish you a lot of luck in this endeavor! If I were going to go this route, that is, to engineer a network not dependent on the Internet -- I'd first go down to the most fundamental principle of WiFi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, EDGE, EVDO, LTE, etc. -- and that most fundamental principal is RADIO . From there, I'd ask the question -- how can any device which implements one or more of the wireless protoco…

> I'd almost argue that if someone were to make the simplest of all SDR's that could turn ordinary WiFi cards and devices into SDR

SDR became wildly popular (well, relatively, amongst geeks) when someone worked out a ~$10 usb dtv tuner could be used easily as an SDR receiver. There are very few (but not zero) rules around recieving radio signals.

Once you start transmitting though, things get way moire complicated very quickly. Some of those radio protocols you listed (Bluetooth/WiFi/ZigBee) typically use "ISM" radio bands, where the rules are less stringent (but there are still rules), some of the protocols you mention (EDGE/EVDO/LTE) will very quickly get you found/shutdown/fined if you start transmitting on them. Telco's pay millions for the licenses to those bands, and strongly protect their exclusive use of them.

If you "just use" your wifi/bluetooth radios as they were designed, you'll be complying with all the regulations (including things like ensuring you abide by geographically different available channels, 2.4GHz channel 14 and sometime 13 and 12 are not available depending on where in the world you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#2.4_GHz_... )

If you start screwing around at a low enough level to be controlling the radios without the higher level drivers - you become responsible for all the global regulatory shitstorms you might bump into. While that would be a fun thing to play with (and I say this as someone who's used a USB VGA dongle as an "SDR Transmitter" in ways that are _totally_ not legal where I live), it's not really a sensible path to go down if your goal is widely usable decentralised non-internet connected messaging.

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#82

Post by airbreather »

ok, i spent 5 minutes and i still have no info how it actually communicates? wifi, wifi radio, bluetooth, ultrasonic chirps, modulated light, all of the above?

i would have thought frst thing to say, it tends toi make me suspicious, but they look like good guys, just lacking some transparency at this stage.

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#83

Post by bigiain »

deckard1 wrote: post #46
KoftaBob wrote: post #20

This brings up a question I still haven't gotten a clear answer to: why isn't Signal peer-to-peer like this? What is it about p2p that made it not doable, rather than Signal's current setup where every message goes through a centralized server before reaching the recipient? Would appreciate any insight.

> What is it about p2p that made it not doable Well, everything? Nothing about mobile devices is suited for p2p. Mobile devices are the exact opposite of what you want for p2p to function smoothly. The devices are always going offline, they move around and acquire new IP addresses, they can't run things in the background without significant battery drain. And probably most important: NAT and routing issues. This isn'…

> Nothing about mobile devices is suited for p2p. Mobile devices are the exact opposite of what you want for p2p to function smoothly.

That's true for their (usually) CGNATed cellular data connections and NATed home wifi connections. But if you were happy to consider a solution where "p2p" meant "peers within bluetooth and wifi range of each other can store/forward messages in a mesh" then mobile devices are _exactly_ the piece of hardware you'd want. Add in some IPFS store/forward from opportunistically internet connected devices to allow message passing between disconnected local meshes, and you should build a really interesting (low bandwidth very high potential latency) messaging system.

(Note: this "disconnected meshes with opportunistic internet connection" is pretty much what things like LoRaWAN and Meshtastic can do, but using specialised LoRa radio hardware instead of the built in capabilities of every smartphone on the planet.)

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#84

Post by bigiain »

KoftaBob wrote: post #20

This brings up a question I still haven't gotten a clear answer to: why isn't Signal peer-to-peer like this? What is it about p2p that made it not doable, rather than Signal's current setup where every message goes through a centralized server before reaching the recipient? Would appreciate any insight.

Because the problem they've chosen to solve is "secure reliable e2e encrypted messaging via the internet". (or something very similar to that)

It's a big enough problem on its own. Tacking "p2p" on as well makes it a different thing, which is not what Signal are doing.

I want my Signal messages to arrive at my friends Signal clients, even if that's later after they've recharged their dead phone. I don't want my Signal messages to vanish if I (or a friend) is on a WiFi network where p2p is blocked. There's a serious need for a centralised server for Signals goals to be achieved, so they have one. The fundamental design then means the added benefit of _also_ implementing p2p where possible is small, while the effort/cost is high. Of course that didn't build that.

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#85

Post by bigiain »

LockAndLol wrote: post #64

I know people like harking on about phone number or email requirements, but how am I supposed to find my friends? Do I have to send them a message over Signal to tell them the name I picked on another app?

Something like that.

That's the big reason Moxie chose to use phone numbers. Piggyback off the pre existing social network from people's contact lists.

It's great for viral uptake, even if it's not as privacy preserving as a (way way) less usable "random identifier I chose" messenger like, say, Wickr. It's not a surprise that the two big names in all the discussion about WhatApp's Privacy Policy update and mass exodus were Telegram and Signal, with of which use phone numbers as social network kickstarters - instead of "I can choose any username I like but then nobody can find me and anybody could impersonate me" messengers like Wickr.

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#87

Post by exadeci »

airbreather wrote: post #82

ok, i spent 5 minutes and i still have no info how it actually communicates? wifi, wifi radio, bluetooth, ultrasonic chirps, modulated light, all of the above? i would have thought frst thing to say, it tends toi make me suspicious, but they look like good guys, just lacking some transparency at this stage.

No internet connection required (uses the BLE technology and mDNS)

It says one the readme

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#88

Post by elgfare »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #53

A fascinating idea, I wish you a lot of luck in this endeavor! If I were going to go this route, that is, to engineer a network not dependent on the Internet -- I'd first go down to the most fundamental principle of WiFi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, EDGE, EVDO, LTE, etc. -- and that most fundamental principal is RADIO . From there, I'd ask the question -- how can any device which implements one or more of the wireless protoco…

Not sure if there is any benefit to stripping back to raw radio. You can almost always build on top of other protocols to get a pipe that you can then build your protocol on.

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#89

Post by anonisko »

haivri wrote: post #66
jedahan wrote: post #60

> Berty does not and will not need blockchain in its protocol This is one of the first things I look for around decentralized communications+apps these days, and I am very happy to see no blockchain here.

> The main concept of the Berty Protocol is the "group", a virtual place where multiple devices can share messages and metadata using OrbitDB, which itself relies on IPFS. Doesn't IPFS rely on blockchain?

I believe there's some work being done to use cryptocurrency micro payments as a layer on top of IPFS to incentivize data storage.

edit; Filecoin, https://docs.filecoin.io/about-filecoin/ipfs-and-filecoin/#d...

Re: Berty: Peer-to-peer messaging app that works with or without internet access

#90

Post by pabs3 »

loceng wrote: post #65
peter_d_sherman wrote: post #53

A fascinating idea, I wish you a lot of luck in this endeavor! If I were going to go this route, that is, to engineer a network not dependent on the Internet -- I'd first go down to the most fundamental principle of WiFi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, EDGE, EVDO, LTE, etc. -- and that most fundamental principal is RADIO . From there, I'd ask the question -- how can any device which implements one or more of the wireless protoco…

I'd love someone with knowledge-experience with radio to chime into the feasibility of such a system, what the constraints and potential legality of it could be. I'd imagine a mesh network like this could be most useful during natural disasters that disable wired/powered communications, maybe for wartime anti-tyranny - however radio waves could be blocked/tracked and targeted afaik, so maybe not foolproof for that us…

See this "Roundup of Secure Messengers with Off-The-Grid Capabilities (Distributed/Mesh Messengers)":

https://changelog.complete.org/archives/10205-roundup-of-sec...

Post reply on HN