←back to thread

Bitchat – A decentralized messaging app that works over Bluetooth mesh networks

(github.com)
770 points ananddtyagi | 5 comments | 07 Jul 25 00:05 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
moneywaters ◴[07 Jul 25 05:35 UTC] No.44487086[source]▶
I’ve been toying with a concept inspired by Apple’s Find My network: Imagine a decentralized, delay-tolerant messaging system where messages hop device-to-device (e.g., via Bluetooth, UWB, Wi-Fi Direct), similar to how “Find My” relays location via nearby iPhones.

Now add a twist: • Senders pay a small fee to send a message. • Relaying devices earn a micro-payment (could be tokens, sats, etc.) for carrying the message one hop further. • End-to-end encrypted, fully decentralized, optionally anonymous.

Basically, a “postal network” built on people’s phones, without needing a traditional internet connection. Works best in areas with patchy or no internet, or under censorship.

Obvious challenges: • Latency and reliability (it’s not real-time). • Abuse/spam prevention. • Power consumption and user opt-in. • Viable incentive structures.

What do you think? Is this viable? Any real-world use cases where this might be actually useful — or is it just a neat academic toy?

replies(42): >>44487111 #>>44487126 #>>44487137 #>>44487162 #>>44487174 #>>44487219 #>>44487306 #>>44487401 #>>44487416 #>>44487875 #>>44487918 #>>44487994 #>>44488076 #>>44488351 #>>44488419 #>>44488612 #>>44488911 #>>44488986 #>>44489072 #>>44489735 #>>44489867 #>>44489897 #>>44489908 #>>44490304 #>>44490306 #>>44490405 #>>44490521 #>>44490567 #>>44490746 #>>44491021 #>>44491277 #>>44491800 #>>44491846 #>>44492206 #>>44492341 #>>44493200 #>>44493256 #>>44494750 #>>44494963 #>>44499945 #>>44515267 #>>44523816 #
1. bee_rider ◴[07 Jul 25 14:54 UTC] No.44491021[source]▶
How would the payment work?

You pass along a message, and get a token in return. Then, some options:

1) the message never makes it through

2) the message makes it through, via your path

3) the message makes it through, but via some other path, and yours is really a dead end

Also, how would you handle the case where multiple peers all get the message and send it through the same bottleneck node? I guess you’d want to have some incentive to widen bottlenecks, so that no nodes become important…

replies(1): >>44491495 #
2. clarkmoody ◴[07 Jul 25 15:40 UTC] No.44491495[source]▶
Bitcoin Lightning Network solves the routing payment problem via a series of cascading unlocks of value across the route. Nodes can change their fee policy independent of the network, so the bottleneck node could make more money in your scenario. Then those high fees attract additional nodes to provide liquidity along that route, bringing fee competition.
replies(2): >>44492642 #>>44494062 #
3. beefnugs ◴[07 Jul 25 17:28 UTC] No.44492642[source]▶
So painful when people recommend bitcoin lightning. Its technically interesting... but complete nonsense to pay like $50 just for one "hop" of the payment chain. It would be an upfront cost of hundreds to get a payment chain you planned on spending fractions of a penny per day/week/month
replies(1): >>44494083 #
4. immibis ◴[07 Jul 25 19:58 UTC] No.44494062[source]▶
Bitcoin Lightning requires realtime communication with every node in the route. If you can communicate with enough nodes to negotiate passing a message, you could also just send the message.
5. immibis ◴[07 Jul 25 19:59 UTC] No.44494083{3}[source]▶
Hm? As I understood it, you lock up some money, and then secretly agree to reallocate it with the Lightning protocol, and then eventually get it back in the latest allocation. So it costs $50 and then you get $50 back - or $60 or $40.

This is an interesting thing when financial institutions do it between themselves. It's completely useless as a consumer-facing payment system. Consumers aren't going to plan in advance how much money to lock up, that's just stupid.

I assume you're not referring to the transaction fee because last I heard, it's not currently $25.