Comment by rm30
1 month ago
I’ve read all the posts and, as the 'old man of the village', I would suggest taking a look at FidoNet. It was running 40 years ago, for more than a decade, before the internet was available to the average person.
Store-and-forward, hierarchical organization, scheduled transmissions, working over dial-up and radio links, everything is there.
There is nothing new to invent, and it was far more reliable than the 10m real-world range of BT5 (not the 1km claimed for lab devices, which aren't commercial phones).
A BT5 mesh only works under well-defined conditions, which usually coincide with the cases where you don't actually need it.
FidoNet has a lot of it solved, for sure. But doesn't it rely upon pre-configured paths between nodes in order to handle message routing?
If so, then: Wouldn't it fall down completely when operating in the ever-shifting and inherently disorganized environment that a sea of pocket supercomputers represents?
I don’t take concepts as a 'full package'. I evaluate what is worth taking based on the requirements. The brilliant part of FidoNet is the asynchronous persistence.
In a 'sea of supercomputers,' a real-time mesh (like Bluetooth) fails because it requires an end-to-end path right now. Store-and-Forward allows a node to hold a message until it 'sees' any valid peer, turning every 'meat-bot' into a mobile post office.
My main concern with this entire discussion is the reliance on Bluetooth to achieve the result.
If we truly want to build a free and open intercommunications system, we must put all ideas on the table, establish clear targets (a doomsday system or inviting a friend for a drink), and evaluate what is truly available versus what is not.
Only from that foundation can we begin to define a project that survives the real world.
Yes. There's a lot of things to work out.
Here's one scenario:
Node A has a message to send to node H, but A is disconnected (no peers). Node A stores this message for eventual delivery.
Eventually, node K (ie "any valid peer") appears. Node A gives them the message that is intended for node H and rinses its hands of it.
Does node K's possession of this message actually improve the odds of node H ever receiving the message?
2 replies →
It looks like Secure Scuttlebutt may also be relevant here, as it was designed with unreliable networks in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
Thanks for posting - this is really interesting. An idea perhaps whose time may have come. Out of interest (no criticism implied) but do/have you use this tech? and if so what was your experience?
I never actually used Fidonet. I started on BBS systems just as the internet was becoming affordable, and I made the switch early.
However, I apply the concepts of FidoNet almost every day. I often design offline-first devices, where store-and-forward logic is a necessity, not an option. Many are deployed in remote areas where signals are never optimal, there a High-Gain Antenna is the only solution.
I also prioritize binary protocols over structured JSON; you have a much higher probability of delivering a few hundred bytes of binary data than a bloated text object when the link budget is tight. Finally, I never expect Wi-Fi to work beyond 5-10m when the router is placed inside the metal structure (that's why my skepticism about BT on cruise ship).