Okay, so maybe not a complete take over. Not right away…down the road possibly. It would definitely introduce independence through trustless decentralization. Money is a significant part of the equation. Mostly I believe people willing to get together to start a team is the most important. My idea is based on a design I have. A device that essentially floats about 20 miles above the earth for months at a time. Most of the flight control systems are not much more complex than what can be stamped from existing UAV controls. The thrust mechanisms are far more advanced but far superior in terms of energy efficiency and service life. The device would be equipped with transmission that would not require FCC approval requiring only FAA. Which should be able to get approved under existing guidelines. The business model would be unique for the purposes of maintaining its own integrity. The device itself would run similar to the helium network only it wouldn’t operate on the proof of coverage. Rather it would operate most likely on Cardano as its own unique currency for the purposes of governance. Some of this would be debatable within the start up team. But I think it would make more sense to avoid the complexity of on block data transfer. Instead it would make more sense to run it from a nonprofit organization that eventually transfers itself to decentralized servers. The network would be decentralized. All the devices would be controlled by the individuals who own them under certain rules collaborated by local governments and etiquette of the system itself. The devices would consist of a provider and the hotspots. The provider would cost around $10k with potential to earn a healthy reward. The hotspots would cost around $100 and provide low cost high speed internet for around $25 a month. The monthly fee would go directly to purchase the crypto currency which would go into a pool that would average out over a year with a continuous payment to each of the providers based on their data transferred over a specific time. The profit motive is in the suppliers of the devices and the investment in the providers. To maintain integrity the providers are the consensus and their power is derived from a pool of crypto owners that stake on each provider. This maintains the coverage and strengths of the network by providing investment towards uptime while limiting pool power by capping returns on staking volume and voting power gradually. None of the controls or code within the network would be approved and locked in place by the blockchain without the approval by the consensus mechanism. Initial startup would probably be only around $200k to start up a few test providers. After that it would branch out on its own with the currency distribution funding contributors and the efforts of complete decentralization. I would like this to started up by serious people who intend to preserve a genuine cause of liberty. I’m not even saying I would lead the team. The only thing I would require is that I have veto power over any decision I don’t agree with on principle. What do you think? This is the second time I am potentially handing over massive potential. At some point I believe my resources will continue to grow to the point in which I will no longer need such resources. Now is the time to be interested. It would start with conversations and meetings online leading into business plan and structure. We will need at least a few people in different areas of design. I don’t believe Dapp experience would be necessary, but would help. We can build this team as we go. Once the team is somewhat formed the IP will be patented and the money will come. Thoughts?
Goodness. Is this serious?
Yes, very serious. All of the tech is viable. It is really not even money. I would not require much more than putting a team together that would be willing to make it happen. A team on the right side of things.
Solar powered UAVs perhaps? Such a device could stay aloft indefinitely.
But what goes up can be shot down. That means you’ll need a lot of them.
I do like the idea of an alternative internet infrastructure. We’ve got way tooany eggs in one basket. That makes our cause vulnerable.
Now: Who controls all this? I don’t think anyone is keen to swap o e set of tech overlords for another. .
But surely it could introduce competition into an area where it is sorely needed.
Well, Rupert Murdoch is just another oligarch but at least he balances out the other ones. Somebody is going to have to do it unless there is a way to create a more decentralized system like bitcoin, maybe everyone with their own satellite dish or something.
Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Frye,
Thank you both for your interest. Yes, it could be shot down. Transatlantic lines can also be cut. Satellite or any RF relays can be blocked. I am not specifically addressing military strategic communication. Nor would I want to expose myself as such a threat. Though this tech could be used in conjunction and with military communications and make it more efficient, for the purposes of this intent I am addressing civilian applications. For this I am not concerned about them being shot down. They also would be easily deployable and relatively low cost. This gives it extremely robust redundancy. For every one shot down or more likely a maintenance failure, another one standing by could be deployed within minutes. In fact, an entire market would probably be created to provide standby hotspots. If the governance mechanism is employed to allow temporary takeover of a claimed area when coverage is not being provided. There should also be some overlapping within the claimed areas. If you look at the helium architecture it would be similar only I believe there should be a governance mechanism relative to capacity. Each hotspot would have first come first serve to certain areas. Ideally in the governance there would be some overlapping allowed. In areas where the peak of the capacity is reached and the operator fails to provide additional capacity, another operator should be allowed to claim access, splitting the area. Perhaps into hexagons like that of helium. Helium uses a governance mechanism that splits profits of data by transmit scale. When too many hotspots are in the same area it splits the profits of the available data. This is okay on a few hundred dollar device. When we scale this to a $10k device it lowers investor pool which to me makes more sense to incentivize that pool to investment by guaranteeing or claiming access to a certain area and then open up access based on reliability and ability to match increased demand. Outside of this the network world be open to anybody. In terms of one tyrant for another, this is why I would like the entire network to be running as decentralized with the individual hotspots to be invested by anybody or any group. If that hotspot fails to perform its service, the network would allow for others to access. Very similar to how mining claims work only the governance mechanism would be under unbiased decentralized control. The Beauty of such systems is that you get all the benefits of a corporation without its ability to be easily centrally manipulated or corrupted.
Yes Mr. Frye,
The crypto smart contract architecture makes technology like this much easier to manage. There will be some challenges in securing the code. However, most of the code is already written and open source. Mostly it should consist of finding dapp software engineers to adapt it to the platform.