That’s the dream. However that really only exists in local areas. Good luck trying to get companies to host on a radio mesh network.
Homie I’m a dirtykid lol, was for a while at least. It’s street slang.
This site is pejoratively roleplay revolutionary suburb kids, discussions on here make me genuinely uncomfortable as an impoverished fellow that’s not from the yuppie demographic.
So I avoid here for the most part, besides talking technology.
Slrpnk and lemmy in general is just a bunch of yuppies.
This project is slowly growing from small personal radio mesh networks. It sounds like you have some interesting points and I'm not sure the devs are truely ready for huge-scale networks. I would highly recommend getting involved if you have something to add.
GNUnet is more of an attempt to replace the entire internet, with replacements for every feature of the modern web, while Reticulum is a far more solarpunk and permacomputing vision. It’s a very practical, implementation-first approach.
It’s primarily a cheap, easy, practical tool for a local community, which can be linked with other communities around the world using any means practical.
Man your badass lol. Very cool, thanks for the resource.
This may have some similarities on the surface, however this is a mesh radio network designed for an extreme challenge of navigating a un-known-sized network, with unknown structure, with extreme computing and bandwith limitations.
I think that's actually a very positive sign. This is a mesh network made by radio people, not a mesh made by networking nerds. Now that it's mature, they are doing a rewrite in C++.
Hit me up on some of the nomad network bulletin boards.
Network replacement. The reason this comes from left field for us meshnet tech peeps is because while we have been looking at gnunet and thinking about things from the network side, the radio heads have been building their own mesh nets for ages, and this is the current cutting edge. Same social space behind LoRA.
While we were building from the top-down (ie. trying to start with the singular project), these people started from the bottom up, and got a lot farther. Growing out of radio networking protocols.
This gives them a very fresh perspective, which is why their solution is so elegant and simple. None of that fancy math bullshit that requires heavy calculations.
Reticulum is an elegant engineers approach to networking. It’s a complete replacement of the network stack, it’s entirely encrypted, and can communicate and can correctly organize global-scale mesh-networks over any connection >5b/s without the need for distributed hash tables, or any resource usage besides bandwidth. This makes it far lighter than GNUnet, and friendly to low-power, low bandwidth, embedded networks and devices.
This makes it viable as a global network, as it is super cheap to interact with. And it can run on any device, including your smartphone natively.
> Bandwidth is a physical resource of the natural world. Reticulum is based on the principle of creating systems that (as far as is possible for a computer program) understand the physical limits of real-world resources, and manages them responsibly and intelligently, with well-thought out algorithms. > > When that is ultimately not possible any more, human beings have to step in and expand capacity or make other thoughtful decisions on how to manage the available resources. I believe this is the most efficient, holistic and human-friendly approach to creating technologies that actually help us and better our lives.
- someone from forums
Gnunet aims to replace the internet on all levels. This is the low level of that.
This could form a network with local peers in a secure private internet over bluetooth LE, which could also connect to a broader network through some nodes having internet access.
I'm hoping to integrate LORA mesh networks with satellite nodes for completely FOSS, indestructible, resilient, resistance internet.
This document contains the R 5 N DHT technical specification. R 5 N is a secure distributed hash table (DHT) routing algorithm and data structure for decentralized applications. It features an open peer-to-peer overlay routing mechanism which supports ad-hoc permissio...
(Teaser)
1. Introduction
This specification describes the protocol of R5N. R5N is a Distributed Hash Table (DHT). The name is an acronym for "randomized recursive routing for restricted-route networks".
The core idea behind R5N is to combine a randomized routing algorithm with an efficient, deterministic closest-peer algorithm. This allows us to construct an algorithm that is able to escape and circumvent restricted route environments while at the same time allow for a logarithmically bounded routing complexity.
1.2. System Model
DHTs usually operate as overlay networks consisting of peers communicating over the existing Internet. Hence canonical DHT designs often assume that the IP protocol provides the peers of the overlay with unrestricted end-to-end pairwise connectivity. However, in practice firewalls and network address translation (NAT) [RFC2663] make it difficult for peers operating on consumer end-devices to directly communicate, especially in the absence of core network infrastructure enabling NAT traversal via protocols such as interactive connectivity establishment (ICE) [RFC5245].
Furthermore, not all peer-to-peer networks consistently operate over the Internet, such as mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). While routing protocols have been designed for such networks ([RFC3561]) these generally have issues with security in the presence of malicious participants, as they vulnerable to impersonation attacks. The usual solution to these issues is to assert that the entire MANET is a closed network and to require authentication on all control messages. In contrast, the system model for R5N is that of an open network without any kind of authorities that could restrict access only to trusted participants.
1.3. Security Model
We assume that the network is open and thus a fraction of the participating peers is malicious. Malicious peers may create, alter, delay or drop messages. We also assume that an adversary can control (or fake) many peers [Sybil], thus any kind of voting or punishment of malicious peers would be rather pointless.
Honest peers are expected to establish and maintain many connections. We assume that as a result the adversary is generally unable to prevent honest peers from maintaining a sufficient number of direct connections with other honest peers to achieve acceptable performance. As the number of malicious peers and their connections increases, performance of the system should gracefully degrade, and only collapse for peers that an adversary has fully isolated from the benign network.