[Battlemesh] IGF 2018 WS #279 Scaling community networks

[pdbinder]

Thanks Paul. The trustlessness of the protocol and the "*LOCAL* structure of trust" are two different things. Ammbr seems to be going for a completely trustless and anonymous system. Whereas Althea is using trustless protocols but those who actually run the infrastructure do not need to be trustless nor anonymous when they setup their decentralized autonomous organization. Said DAO would be setup on a trustless 'smart contract' distributed ledger, and use trustless cryptocurrency to settle accounts, but that doesn't mean those who participate are anonymous. Trustlessness of the protocol doesn't mean those using the protocol with are not local, known, and trusted. Even if the local Athea DAO was anonymous, is that different than someone anonymously joining a local mesh? -- Patrick Binder ---- On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 06:15:57 -0600 Paul Fuxjaeger <paul.fuxjaeger at gmx.at> wrote ---- Thanks for the initiative, I also think that this topic deserves some attention here. At funkfeuer, we also have been approached by crypto-economic projects such as ammbr. We respectfully declined because of a contradiction we see with trustless protocols in the context of a *LOCAL* community: If the proof-of-(whatever) is not derived from a *LOCAL* structure of trust (i.e. the people owning the nodes in places they inhabit) it would essentially be a "trustless local community infrastructure". And that sounds to our ears like "hot ice cream" - it just doesn't seem to make sense. BUT: I remember many open and fruitful discussions about distributed ledgers during battlemesh events. In a sense, the mesh networking community was working with "distributed ledgers" loooong before they became cool, we call them "distributed routing protocols based on local trust". The idea of adding a token scheme on top was not discussed very often to my knowledge - so it seems like we just don't care. SO: Based on that view, I think that the narrative of community networks is *NOT* really endangered by association with cryptoeconomic projects. Most of these probably will probalby fade away as quickly as the ICO/VC money came in - failing to produce that tasty hot ice cream. cheers -paul PS: those rumors about our revolutionary funkfeuer tokens being hacked are completely unsubstantial, if you claim otherwise I'll meet you in court :D On 16.11.18 18:53, panayotis antoniadis wrote: > On 16.11.18 18:47, Benjamin Henrion wrote: >> >> For me open source projects should start as open source. Later >> anything could happen, like the recent hack of Ammbr's currency, >> and plans for "openness" easily change. >> >> >> Any link to that hack? > > I have only some screenshots (attached) from the Ammbr's telegram > group. > > > > _______________________________________________ Battlemesh mailing > list Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh > _______________________________________________ Battlemesh mailing list Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20181117/794545e9/attachment.htm>