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

Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

sha.ddih.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#31

Post by WiseWeasel »

ramidarigaz wrote: post #21
WiseWeasel wrote: post #11

OK, plan B. First, we quantum-entangle a few billion pairs of particles... Failing that, even without connecting the hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of square miles between cities, I think there is still great potential political, economic and recreational value in decentralized Metropolitan Area Networks, despite the fact that they won't supplant the Internet.

Can't use quantum entanglement to transmit information unfortunately... It would be nice though.

Is there a reason to believe it would never be possible, or is it simply that we haven't found a way yet?

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#32

Post by 110101001010100 »

wolfeater wrote: post #18
WiseWeasel wrote: post #11

OK, plan B. First, we quantum-entangle a few billion pairs of particles... Failing that, even without connecting the hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of square miles between cities, I think there is still great potential political, economic and recreational value in decentralized Metropolitan Area Networks, despite the fact that they won't supplant the Internet.

As the project creator I agree. It will never supplant the Internet, but localized networks can play a huge role in how the web works however, and I see establishing these as the real goal of the project.

It is crucial in my opinion how you define the goals of your project.

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#33

Post by v21 »

wmf wrote: post #29
sophacles wrote: post #28

This seems to assume that the only way to use a network is the current (near)instant req/resp style networking, which is core to a lot of current protocols. One of the things a darknet would enable is a slower eventual delivery model, like email used to be. This is not ideal, but opportunistic store and forward still can move information faster and easier than no network at all. Things like freenet and freedom boxes…

People are only going to buy the equipment in the first place if they can check their Facebook over it. A network that's designed only for freedom fighters ends up not getting enough nodes to reach critical mass (see Freenet). People might tolerate an Internet-incompatible network if it also came with lots of free warez, though.

Piracy is definitely the draw for this. Enough to make it practical? Maybe - it depends on how many good alternatives to piracy exist.

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#34

Post by rhizome »

ap22213 wrote: post #30
marquis wrote: post #4

I'd like to note that every single item listed in this is a technical barrier. There are no political barriers, there are no wealth or resource barriers. RF is free to use on the spectrum we need it to work on (ok, until that's illegal). It's that it's a hard, hard problem to solve and it hasn't been solved yet. Do not let that stop anyone from continuing to do work on this: maybe it will get solved.

I really don't want to be the cynic on this subject, but I can't help but point to what I think is the elephant in the room: The political barriers will emerge as you succeed in this. Suppose you are able to jump the technical barriers - you make the tech happen. I believe it will be at that point when power oligarchy will erect the political, legal barriers against your successes. Worse, they'll probably use your te…

Red Queen Hypothesis: solving problems reveals more unsolved problems.

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

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#35

Post by ramidarigaz »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #31
ramidarigaz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't use quantum entanglement to transmit information unfortunately... It would be nice though.

Is there a reason to believe it would never be possible, or is it simply that we haven't found a way yet?

Here's one video. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkgklr_the-possibility-of-u... It doesn't really explain things thoroughly, but it's the best I can find right now.

Re: Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship

#36

Post by wisty »

pyre wrote: post #26
wisty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had an antenna and an omni, though, you could connect a local subnet to the wider area. If you had a few directional antennas in each local subnet (say, an apartment complex connected by omnis), then the subnets would connect to the rest of the world. Wireless meshes don't work. They need to be fractal - local omnis, then cantennas, then backbones. If every geek had a cantenna (plus an omni to connect to the n…

Isn't the problem with this, single points of failure? I guess it's still more of a mesh than the current infrastructure. But if you're trying to 'route around the government,' then having a defined structure seems counter to your goals.

A full mesh is impossible. It just doesn't scale. You need a fractal system. You also need graceful degradation (or progressive enhancement). It would be great to push a tweat out, and have it visible on the local network until the local network can sync with the central server.
Post reply on HN