Topic: So the Hurricane had me thinking about bitcoin offline (Read 4402 times)

I have an iphone and that is around the same price range probably more so yea

Yup, at least five times what domestic cell service costs.  I pay $25 per month for 300 anytime minutes, unlimited text & data, and my smartphone cost me $75 two years ago.  The baseline satphone costs $599 and the service is comparable to an in-the-air airline phone call.

BTW, I've been paying for my cell service entirely with bitcoins for going one a year now.

***FREE INCOMING CALLS***...yep!  Free to for the phone owner to receive the calls, shockingly pricey for the person who has to dial the most expensive country code of international dialing there is on the entire planet.  Country codes 870, 871, 872, 873, and 874 are how you dial these phones, and the per-minute rates are how they get paid.  Skype even offers calls to these numbers at the bargain price of just $6.80 a minute. http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/prices/call-rates/cheap-calls-to-inmarsat

http://www.telestial.com/view_product.php?ID=SPHN-ISAT
http://remotesatellite.com/

Um, I'd like to see that service offer.  My experience with satphones is that they cost at least 5 times as much than a comparable domestic cell service.  Yes, I've looked.

I was just referring to the abilities of bitcoin to deal with short term disruptions such as  a power or internet outage following a storm.  Longer term issues, such as living in the middle of Africa, can also be dealt with in it's own way.  Regular power or not, there are more people who have access to a cell phone than have access to a flush toilet; and if you have access to a cell phone, even with intermittent connectivity, then you can deal in bitcoins.  Search for the term "MPesa" if you doubt it.  There are a number of ways that those who live distant from high speed Internet can be served by bitcoin, but not the least of which is that bitcoin adoption potentially drives Internet solutions in those distant locals.  Yes, a satphone data link is expensive, but easier to take when you have 50 vendors in a marketplace pitching in to pay for the connection.  There are a number of other solutions as well, from shortwave DRM datacasting of recent blocks to sneakernet movement of thumbdrives with the blockchain.  If you can do it with email, you can do it with bitcoins.  I'd be willing to wager that I coudl do it over psk31 using pskmail, it would just take a while.

And yes, I have a ham license, and it is possible to transact via HF via a 300 baud radio modem, but an ad-hoc mesh network, such as the kind proposed by the creators of the bitcoincard or by the design characteristics of Dash7 networking, would be much better at moving transactions even if there were only one decent internet connection within the entire disconnected town, which is something that isn't likely even in a distant city in Africa with at least 200K people living there.

UHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM two-way sat phones cost no more than any regular cell phone, and alot of them offer free incoming calls with text messages costing mere cents.

Yes, a sat-phone with a 12 volt car adapter would be enough to support an unknown number of bitcoincards within the two-hop mesh range of about 4 city blocks.  The limiting factor would be the number of transactions-per-minute, since the bitcoincards are really just hardware based, blockchain-less 'light' clients.  The connectivity is only required for quick checks with the main bitcoincard servers & for forwarding transactions to the network, but even the transaction forwarding can be delayed without breaking the system.  A 14.4Kbps link should be able to support 5-10 transactions per second, so it should be able to support an open-air marketplace the size of a Wal-Mart.

Again, bitcoincard to bitcoincard transactions don't necessarily require a live connection anyway, so long as the sending card can prove that it has the inputs to such a transaction, but the smartcard is memory constrained, so it wouldn't be able to keep a great deal of inputs, and thus would still be limited in how many transactions that it could perform between interactions with it's supporting server.

Actually, it can.  I've done it personally in a couple of different ways.  Cascious physical bitcoins is one obvious way, but I've done it by ad-hoc wireless.  The bitcoincard smartcard based hardware client works in much the same way, and limited transactions can occur in the absence of live connectivity.  The trick is that the sending client must have copies of the input transactions that it's using, must be able to send them to the receiving client, and the receiving client must have some method of checking those input transactions for credibility.  It's not as trustworthy as a pair of full clients with live internet and updated blockchains, but for most common interactions one might have in meatspace it's easily as trustworthy as paper cash, since cash can be counterfitted accurate enough to fool most inspections by the unaided human eye.

Bitcoincards create mesh network in local area and internet connection required only for the core nodes, internet via satellite plus small power generator e.g. a car, will suffice. So, if Bitcoincard comes out and becomes popular that will make Bitcoin natural disaster resilient.

I think we will see a more p2p-based internet in the future and more mesh-networks. If our smartphones for instance created a mesh-network automatically internet connection could be sustained with a few small solar panels and some smartphones in almost the worst of disasters.

Hologram BTC coins of various sorts could also work nicely in a dedicated community until connection was reestablished.

Ok, that makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

Whether free or not, the main thing would be cost per user, exploiting the ability of the satellite to broadcast data at a nominal per-user cost.  If a million people get on a satellite and download the block chain using IP as the backbone (IP multicasting aside), the satellite needs one million times the bandwidth to send the packets to users, one at a time, as well as dealing with all of the overhead of acknowledgments, retries, etc.  But if the satellite simply streams the block chain as though it were a channel that everybody could tune to, the bandwidth effectiveness is maximized.  The stream would contain forward error correction and a small measure of scheduled repetition so that receivers who miss some of the transmission can fill it in.

The main diffrence for the satellite receive-only terminal is related to the required precision of the installation. When terminal is never radiating anything towards the satellite it is much cheaper to install and the terminal itself is also much cheaper and smaller.

Casascius - what is the difference between what you propose to be done via satellite and a typical Internet via satellite service?  Why re-invent the wheel?  If someone has satellite service, why would they not opt for an internet connection instead of some weird listen-only connection?  Or are you saying this satellite listen-only service would be free, thus more accessible to more people?

Bitcoin Foundation should print a yearly book with whole block chain, and distribute it to all the libraries in the world. I should be named enclylopedia Bitcoinica

Given enough evolution of the technology, the stream of new Bitcoin transactions and blocks could easily be fed in through a satellite downlink - the same way XM Radio, DirecTV are downlinked.

This is no joke.  Satellite downlink is a simple one-way stream of huge amounts of data, and those streams can and do contain all kinds of things you would never expect.  If you've ever noticed "XM Traffic" on a car's nav system, you've seen one basic example.  If you've ever seen your satellite TV receiver update its own firmware over the air, you've seen another.  Same yet again if you order a pay-per-view movie and your receiver suddenly knows you paid for it the minute you do so, even though the receiver unit itself may not be connected to the internet.

If you've ever been the pilot of an airplane that supports XM's aviation downlink product, there's gobs of other information being downlinked through the very same satellite signal feeding tunes to your car on the highway - such as locations where lightning has struck recently, text-based weather/visibility condition reports at airports ("TAF's"), all of the doppler radar across the continent, and much more specific to the aviation industry.  All of this occupies a tiny slice of the total available bandwidth available in that satellite signal, and it's very profitable for the satellite companies to offer it, in terms of what they can charge for that feed. http://www.xmwxweather.com/ground/data-service-pricing.php

The Bitcoin block chain is no different.  With nothing more than a satellite feed, in theory you'd have everything you need to be a Bitcoin node, without the ability to send transactions.

Where there is a worldwide demand for a data stream, especially a relatively small data stream whose cost to acquire is nearly zero, the business case for a satellite feed is easy to make.  Bitcoin bandwidth requirements will grow over time of course, but just look at how many channels you can get over DirecTV today - easily into the gigabytes per second - Bitcoin transaction volume has a lot of catching up to do to fill it.  Meanwhile, you'll have demand for multiple providers of this feed, as people will cry "centralization" and worry about economic crippling if there's just one. (similar to GPS vs GLONASS etc).  So we could easily see "datacasts" of block chain data being packed into unused bandwidth of TV signals etc. and multiple independent ways to get block chain data off the air.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacasting

On the other side, sending individual outgoing transactions could be accomplished over regular radio waves, being short blasts of information that travel one-way on a best-effort basis no differently than a distress beacon.  Imagine you're a hut selling bananas in Africa and use solar to power your gear.  Doing a transaction might consist of nothing more than blasting it out on the open airwaves and then looking to see it relayed from the satellite signal within the next few minutes, trying again if not seen.  All of this on battery or solar or electromechanical power, no less.

I don't necessarily mean blasting the transaction back to the satellite (though it's certainly one of the good possibilities), but I am thinking more that you could blast a transaction using a low-cost transmitter with a range of a few kilometers, and expecting that somebody on the ground in range of your signal will either have internet access or the ability to forward the transaction somewhere else that does.  This would make the equipment needed to send new transactions simple and affordable, not to mention keeping it anonymous and open to anyone without needing a costly satellite "outbound data" plan.

In areas with sparse infrastructure (like Africa), highly directional antennas and installing them pointed at known receivers would easily extend that range into the tens of kilometers.  Better yet would be the definition of a "bitcoin radio protocol" that allowed a bitcoin relay network to form based on loose peer-to-multipeer radio broadcasting rather than an IP network, where transactions would hop over radio waves from node to node until reaching the internet at large.  This would be for propagating transactions produced locally and getting them on the wire, not so much for propagating the block chain.

While none of this is achievable for Bitcoin in 2012, if Bitcoin is going to take the world by storm, then being able to transact in this way eventually can be pretty much considered a given.  Hello Africa.

You could also create an AD-Hoc network between two computers, force the bitcoin-qt to connect to the other bitcoin-qt and send coins, just that it wouldn't be confirmed until you were online, cause you need a miner to include in a block. Also if the coin owner, did some surgery they could remove that transaction and it would never get broadcasted and yours would be consider invalid and you would lose the coins.

On a side note, normal banking too would be fucked by outages and offline. You would not even be able to withdraw your money from a bank without electricity. So what apply to bitcoin also apply to dollars and euros.

When power and internet cut out, Bitcoin is basically "frozen" for those people. The system simply doesn't work for transacting money in any convenient way if there is no power or internet.

With that said, the same is true for normal money. The vast majority of transactions are online/digital and this is all halted when the internet goes down. Let's face it, our society is hooked into the web, and when it's down, we suffer. This is not unique to Bitcoin and ought not be considered a flaw of Bitcoin anymore than we consider it a flaw of the internet that it may go down from time to time. The internet is not invalid merely because usage of it can be disrupted, and so it is the same with Bitcoin.

What WOULD be a serious flaw with Bitcoin is if your money was wiped out when the power went out, but that's not how it works. Your money could be etched onto a rock and kept for 10 years without internet or power if need be

A while ago, there was discussion about printing out the entire blockchain onto paper and putting it somewhere, updating occasionally, so that even if all digital data in the world was wiped out, the ownership of coins would persist.