Absolutely it does, for it's totally decentralized.
Nobody is in control.
The normal internet is very centralized. Each 'domain name' is controlled, and in extreme cases can be 'seized' by the FBI.
Certain websites can be "blocked" by ISPs, and if your social credit score is too low in China for example, your ISP can deny you net access.
Now imagine simply turning on your router and connecting with your neighbors?
The "domain" of your site is... your own node. You host it. You can have your own website up to 500 MB. In the future companies can form with multiple redundant nodes and, for an agreeable fee, they can 'host' your site for you, but they cannot stop YOU from hosting your own 500MB.
I'm not trying to be mysterious by not linking, I just don't want the stupidly inefficient onboarding process to be swamped. Not until they've made it smoother and easier for newcomers, as for now it's just a Telegram group, a discord thing and a sprawling wiki thing. That's fine for 2 or 3 new peeps a day, useless for thousands a day, which is what we need.
Edit: I didn't really address the currency bit. The currency is what you spend to interact with things online, buy a 'name' etc. You mine coins like bitcoin but its a matter of time, not how powerful your shed full of computers are. You also have levels, whereby the more of a central hub you are for others, the more coinage you get. Basically you're rewarded for being part of the network infrastructure, and more rewarded the longer you do it and the more the network grows around you. You cannot buy your way in or force it with more powerful computers.
This may be a stupid question, but... you suggest that the problem with the current system is that individual connections can be controlled, monitored, and blocked by governments and other entities.
In the system you're describing, don't I still need an internet connection in the first place, with all those same vulnerabilities, to connect to this network? Or are you describing a completely distinct architecture operating on a different "band" altogether?
Like Bitcoin is vulnerable to high level denial or service attacks by simply blocking the traffic so this new superior network is vulnerable, vulnerable enough to use as a honeypot, if it runs on phone hardware because Apple and Google will send firmware updates that prevent the functionality. Rooted phones are as safe as other router hardware that does not auto update.
From a regulatory standpoint the spectrum allocations may be redrafted (because the children/terrorists/climate/Ukraine/pandemic) to criminalise use of the spectrum for this purpose. Hopefully not but very possible and likely is a few places.
Use of Freespace optical links as much as possible is a great idea. Option to use non phone hardware should be promoted.
I agree all legal and physical means will be used to stop it, which is precisely why I love it - because it's resistant to all that.
If enough people are using it then there's just no shutting it down.
Unfortunately right now they're polishing the app system, the ability to trade with other coins and other stuff, which to me is all irrelevant fluff. It already has a chat system, a name market and basic websites. The #1 thing we need is the mesh network.
GM. Great comments here. Have been worried about you. Perhaps this will inspire you to shake your own tree loose...lol. And EGM is, I believe, correct -- Most of the really competitive markets, even with very few players (groceries, telco) do not have insane profit margins. The desire to "get more" usually wins over the "let's make a deal and we'll both have a lot".
Try playing any war game -- They all start out with alliances being made because it is pretty easy to show that the alliance profits both teams better than if they fight each other. Inevitably, at some point, one team undercuts the other and that is that. Those are usually just duopolies, and the same things happen in goods duopolies/triopolies as well unless the government steps in and screws it up. (Of course it does not happen in monopolies -- that is a different case.)
In any case, good to see your cogent thinking somewhere.
Absolutely it does, for it's totally decentralized.
Nobody is in control.
The normal internet is very centralized. Each 'domain name' is controlled, and in extreme cases can be 'seized' by the FBI.
Certain websites can be "blocked" by ISPs, and if your social credit score is too low in China for example, your ISP can deny you net access.
Now imagine simply turning on your router and connecting with your neighbors?
The "domain" of your site is... your own node. You host it. You can have your own website up to 500 MB. In the future companies can form with multiple redundant nodes and, for an agreeable fee, they can 'host' your site for you, but they cannot stop YOU from hosting your own 500MB.
I'm not trying to be mysterious by not linking, I just don't want the stupidly inefficient onboarding process to be swamped. Not until they've made it smoother and easier for newcomers, as for now it's just a Telegram group, a discord thing and a sprawling wiki thing. That's fine for 2 or 3 new peeps a day, useless for thousands a day, which is what we need.
Edit: I didn't really address the currency bit. The currency is what you spend to interact with things online, buy a 'name' etc. You mine coins like bitcoin but its a matter of time, not how powerful your shed full of computers are. You also have levels, whereby the more of a central hub you are for others, the more coinage you get. Basically you're rewarded for being part of the network infrastructure, and more rewarded the longer you do it and the more the network grows around you. You cannot buy your way in or force it with more powerful computers.
This may be a stupid question, but... you suggest that the problem with the current system is that individual connections can be controlled, monitored, and blocked by governments and other entities.
In the system you're describing, don't I still need an internet connection in the first place, with all those same vulnerabilities, to connect to this network? Or are you describing a completely distinct architecture operating on a different "band" altogether?
Yes, it relies on the main internet right now, via a 'gateway' to the Internet (which is your normal internet connection).
Once it's big enough then no Internet connection is required, just a WiFi router, or an aerial on your roof etc
Like Bitcoin is vulnerable to high level denial or service attacks by simply blocking the traffic so this new superior network is vulnerable, vulnerable enough to use as a honeypot, if it runs on phone hardware because Apple and Google will send firmware updates that prevent the functionality. Rooted phones are as safe as other router hardware that does not auto update.
From a regulatory standpoint the spectrum allocations may be redrafted (because the children/terrorists/climate/Ukraine/pandemic) to criminalise use of the spectrum for this purpose. Hopefully not but very possible and likely is a few places.
Use of Freespace optical links as much as possible is a great idea. Option to use non phone hardware should be promoted.
I agree all legal and physical means will be used to stop it, which is precisely why I love it - because it's resistant to all that.
If enough people are using it then there's just no shutting it down.
Unfortunately right now they're polishing the app system, the ability to trade with other coins and other stuff, which to me is all irrelevant fluff. It already has a chat system, a name market and basic websites. The #1 thing we need is the mesh network.
That's incredibly cool- and literally liberating.
It is, and I've just been chatting with one of the main developers and they've agreed to make this mesh aspect more of a priority :)
A soon as there is any kind of 'profit' from use of the system then the system will grow.
GM. Great comments here. Have been worried about you. Perhaps this will inspire you to shake your own tree loose...lol. And EGM is, I believe, correct -- Most of the really competitive markets, even with very few players (groceries, telco) do not have insane profit margins. The desire to "get more" usually wins over the "let's make a deal and we'll both have a lot".
Try playing any war game -- They all start out with alliances being made because it is pretty easy to show that the alliance profits both teams better than if they fight each other. Inevitably, at some point, one team undercuts the other and that is that. Those are usually just duopolies, and the same things happen in goods duopolies/triopolies as well unless the government steps in and screws it up. (Of course it does not happen in monopolies -- that is a different case.)
In any case, good to see your cogent thinking somewhere.