Meshnets on Maidsafe

You mention the physics upper limit aka Shannon’s Law quite a bit, so I thought I’d just briefly mention this new technology being debuted by the likes of none other than Steve Perlman of Apple, WebTV, Onlive, Mova fame. He calls it PCell or DIDO (Distributed Input Distributed Output) Wireless Technology and he’s built a company called Artemis around it.

He explains what it is better than I can so definitely start here:

My thinking is though, that a LEO Constellation plus a terrestrial grid of these radio antennas coupled with a MeshNet protocol would provide size-able advantages in bandwidth to existing wireless infrastructure. Another possibility is having this as the backhaul for it’s own co-Internet, and not necessarily relying on the commercial Internet unless need be, in which case a connected node would then route it’s signal. The bottom line is this… Not everyone has fiber. Most people have cable modems with speeds of 10-30 mb/s Down. Whereas one node connected to fiber directing traffic over this new wireless infrastructure could allocate enough bandwidth to provide FAR higher throughput than that to the end user… I mean the guy is streaming 4k for Christ’s sake.

This new PCell technology is essentially the most disruptive thing to ever occur in wireless, it’s not something to be brushed off. Apparently they’re in talks now with major telco’s to deliver ASAP.

11 Likes

Yes, thank you @RealHeadWay, PCell tech from artemis is the one.

3 Likes

Check out this demo of the Artemis pCell Wireless. I don’t like hype, but it got me excited.

9 Likes

huh. Trying to find more on this… this seems like a huge deal if legit…

3 Likes

wow…just what we need

2 Likes

@Blindsite2k Opengarden.com can help a lot to create an meshnetwork.

@ktorn CJDNS is not opensourced and Caleb James DeLisle’s idea to have a centralized DNS is totally WRONG. Namecoin could be used, but i got a few problems, if Namecoins become expensive it will be expensive to register a domain. Don’t get me wrong I love CJDNS, but it needs to be opensourced with decentralized DNS

@dyamanaka thanks for sharing

1 Like

This is really quite exciting. The use cases for this are out of this world. This, I dont think just can, will usher in the era of meshnets. I just wish the physics werent so far above my head. I want to know how it works.

1 Like

I have been following Artemis and it looks interesting. However, this is a centralized client/server technology, not peer to peer. It cannot be applied to mesh networks.
The technology requires a central server where all data going to/from the clients must pass. For download data, the server takes the data streams being sent to all clients in the area and transforms them into a series of signals, one for each base station in the area. Uploading data is reversed, the server takes signals from the base stations and transforms them into data streams.
Communication can only happen between the client device and server, through the base station. Client devices cannot communicate with each other without going through the server.
If this technology is successful, it will actually make mesh type networks less attractive, not more. It will give central wireless networks a giant boost in price to performance ratios, further outstripping similarly specd mesh network configurations.

Having said that, I am still sceptical. Artemis makes some heavy promises. They have demoed a few devices working in laboratory settings. Scaling to tens of thousands of devices in the real world may pose serious challenges. I hope they succeed, the technology would be truly game changing. I am not holding my breath, however. There are a long line of technologies that have performed flawlessly in the lab, but fail to be practical in the real world. I’ll get excited when their first large scale production deployment is successful.

4 Likes

I’m well aware of the central data center that computes the algorithm for proper wave propagation amongst interfering peers on the network, thus allowing this sort of wireless “virtualization”, but it might be possible to use maidsafe in place of that central server, making it decentralized. The idea with this, is instead of back hauling to the main internet, for this co-internet, you use the nodes on maidsafe to compute this inverse interfering wave propagation simulation, and broadcast that to the clients from maidsafe. Yes, maidsafe itself does obviously have to been part of the main internet or some other pre-established infrastructure, no-one is saying this infrastructure could serve as a full-on maidsafe backbone as you run into a chicken and egg problem, it’s a logical paradox, a node simulating the algorithm cannot be one that gets the wireless signal to itself, that’s impossible, there does need to be a further backhaul in that respect. So… Potentially you could have a parent maidsafe and child maidsafes who have some type of QoS agreement, possibly with different arrangements but still relying on the main protocol for data relay. The bottom line is tho, for data storage and especially computation, these child MeshNet maidsafes with high enough QoS, are just fine for most developers and users of the system and users of the co-Internet service bypass the main internet by relaying packets through maybe just one node or a few nodes (those deemed safe) that are part of a maidsafe network.

In this approach tho, it would be ideal if nodes performing this wave propagation simulation are just dedicated entirely to giving you signal, and nothing else. In this respect you could maybe even using some combination of FPGA, ASIC, and GPU Hardware to create individual machines stationed nearby or completely encompassed (like a total package) by every single one of these radio antennas.

Bottom line, the data-centers only purpose is to calculate what amounts to an interference pattern, then send that to clients, leaving you with a clear signal. There’s nothing stopping any willing participant with some other pre-established connection from running this software, besides of course, it being Artemis’s intellectual property :wink:

3 Likes

Opengarden only works with bluetooth and works better with wifi, it seems to be geared primarily towards mobile devices.

Also i think this technology only works in one direction (from base station/s to the client) and its interesting to know how they will come over the refection/echo problem. so it wouldnt work with maidsafe very well, cause maidsafe needs also a lot of upload bandwidth.

Whut? cjdns not opensource? GitHub - cjdelisle/cjdns: An encrypted IPv6 network using public-key cryptography for address allocation and a distributed hash table for routing.

CJS is working right now on a decentralised DNS, he only said DNS is another problem to solve later. also cjdns is just the communication layer and have nothing to do with DNS or other software which runs on it.

1 Like

@urrtag thanks for the update, I was ignorant to the fact that it was opensourced now. Their decentralized DNS still uses central authorities, why not just fork Namecoin and adjust the parametres?

1 Like

They want use a Namecoin like system, but with an addition. So that you dont need to download the whole blockchain just to use the naming system. You just have to state who you trust. This system is not really centralised as there can be more than one trusted server. Also you can just run a full node for your self with the disadvantage of having to download and maintain the whole blockcain, what you dont want on a mobilephone or just a “browsing pc”.

1 Like

@urrtag basically what your saying is that they are using http://convergence.io/… If opinions count, “this is still the old system”. I’m glad it’s open sourced, someday somebody will come along that will do it right, because I really think it’s not being done right… But who I’m to give my opnion i can’t even code.

I think if development of mesh network technologies were incentivized by payment via a cryptocurrency, it could make the advent of a more open internet possible. It could start as small mesh networks. Then it grow to larger networks - possibly supported by drones built using open-sourced plans and launched by individual people for “mining” profit by “proof of network” or whatever, Then, eventually, as maidsafe becomes more popular people could form mining pools where basically they built or bought full-on fiber-optic internet infrastructure. Sounds crazy? Who would have thought so much money would be spent on Bitcoin mining hardware and that such large pools with massive buying power would develop.

1 Like

Look at skywire/skycoin

But why is NameCoin a “better” and “newer” system in your opinion? As i already said: set your own “root” server up and trust it with your Smartphone/Tablet/Whatever.

Let me suggest that its important that the cable and telcos not get their return on equity as that would be more money taken from end users when that money could be used to start to build out an end user owned and controlled network now. I have a feeling consumer free space roof top line of sight optical could play a role. As could attempting to save the PC industry, as PCs left on with mesh nics may prove important. All the money cable and telco claims to have spent was based on highly inflated rates. Its not that we want to discourage investment in tech, but we want people to look where they are going. Investing to turn the net into Fox News deserves to be met with hard loss.

Suggesting that Telco and Cable get their return on equity would be like suggesting the RIAA and its labels get their return on equity. The public booted them for running absolutely counter to the public interest. They were paid off. Cable and Telco are paid off and in the way. The idea that these firms should be able to profit by interfering with end user communication is absolutely unacceptable.

If we could get an open mesh phone with a near range of half a mile or more that might be enough to start the change pretty quickly. Of course through MaidSafe such a system could make use as suggested above of current infrastructure but to really make the difference we need to be looking to cut the cord on the ISPs, like we did the ISPs. And we don’t want to roll backwards either. For instant instant crypto currency voluntary micro payments could prevent thing like the labels coming back. We’d never for instance want corporate labels to ever again have price control.

When you register a dot BIT, with Namecoin theoretically no one can hijack it, but this can be further improved, by using POS.

The problem with convergence IMHO, is that you still need to trust someone. Why would you want to move from trusting Certificate Authority to trusted companies? They are both the same (just plain old people that can be hacked, ideally you DON’T WANT TO CHOOSE WHO YOU TRUST (normal consumers woulden’t even have a clue)). So the better solution would be Convergence, but in a decentralized/blockchain set up, so we can all trust the math.