|
|
|
|
|
by rtkwe
345 days ago
|
|
There's going to be people who travel more often between the two network islands already so there's several ways you could do it. The network as a whole could track nodes who often see rarely seen nodes and navigate packets towards those 'bridge/traveller' nodes or the nodes themselves could keep track of nodes they commonly see and choose to cache more messages intended for those nodes it thinks it might reach in village B in the future. It gets more complex if there's messages intended for Village C where no one from Village A visits though without some deleterious privacy impacts from needing to know what nodes see what other nodes but if the messages are relatively small you can address that with just increasing the level of optimistic caching and forwarding perhaps. Also the higher bandwidth the link the better so you can transfer more of these optimistic packets. I'm generally against strapping a coin to this since it seems inevitably to hamper end user adoption in favor of making money for speculators and the people in the ICO. It could incentivize creating static point to point links though by providing potential revenue. Not sure that gets over the downsides of strapping a coin onto this though. |
|
One option --but it might require some centralization-- is that people announce they're going to travel, and stash a bunch of messages. If the sender can provide information about the geographical destination, that could help.
About monetization: remember what money did to the internet. But the above option would practically invite some form of payment. Thinking of Perth, that would lead to a kind of "Mad Max meets Johnny Mnemnonic".