←back to thread

770 points ananddtyagi | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
moneywaters ◴[] 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 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.44489735[source]
> 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.

The Helium Network tried something like this, but with a fixed infrastructure: People were incentivized to run Helium network nodes and could earn micropayments for running nodes and handling traffic.

It revealed a lot of problems with structures like this, such as the incentive to cheat through various loopholes that were discovered.

It also became apparent that the monetization/tokenization aspect overtook the network functionality as the primary motivator for the project. After a while, people started looking at the traffic and payouts and realized that almost nobody was using it for real communication, it had become one big shell game for collecting the payments designed to incentivize nodes to come online and relay traffic. Then the token itself had become a speculative commodity that people used for trading more than anything.

I think it would be interesting if someone could invent a stable coin cryptocurrency with low overhead that enabled some of these use cases, but it seems the allure of generating a new token that the founders can sell into a speculative market to raise funds for the project is always too alluring, so every project goes from having good intentions to becoming a veiled pump and dump. Maybe some day there will be a stable coin that escapes these issues, but I haven’t seen it yet.

replies(6): >>44490336 #>>44491512 #>>44491595 #>>44495417 #>>44498845 #>>44498985 #
repeekad ◴[] No.44490336[source]
> I think it would be interesting if someone could invent a stable coin cryptocurrency with low overhead

Like the US dollar and Postgres?

For like $200 anyone can start a business entity in the US with a tax ID and a bank, I’m still yet to understand how crypto is better other than for circumventing regulators

replies(5): >>44490465 #>>44490872 #>>44491296 #>>44494714 #>>44495412 #
deweller ◴[] No.44490465[source]
Cryptocurrency transfers are irreversible, publicly verifiable and pseudonymous. For a privacy focused application, these attributes make crypto a better choice than USD and the traditional banking system.
replies(4): >>44491002 #>>44493552 #>>44493619 #>>44495700 #
pizzafeelsright ◴[] No.44491002[source]
How?

Irreversible is bad because mistakes happen. I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.

Publicly verifiable -- not good because I don't want the public knowing what I buy.

Pseudonymous is the worst of both. Is it or is it not me? them?

I am thinking digital cash using pub keys on a network run from space on something like starlink sats.

replies(4): >>44491484 #>>44493632 #>>44496243 #>>44496247 #
dylan604 ◴[] No.44493632[source]
> I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.

Was the option of doing a much smaller amount available to validate the account before following up with the full transfer? I've never understood not doing a test transfer first.

replies(1): >>44494146 #
MangoToupe ◴[] No.44494146[source]
You can still make a mistake after the test transfer.
replies(1): >>44495787 #
tshaddox ◴[] No.44495787[source]
Or you can mistakenly think the test transfer worked as intended.
replies(1): >>44495900 #
1. buzzerbetrayed ◴[] No.44495900[source]
Not to mention that the necessity of "do a test transfer" already shows how massively broken the process is
replies(1): >>44497885 #
2. akimbostrawman ◴[] No.44497885[source]
Or maybe that "broken" design is just the result of the actual goal of decentralized P2P...