
Mozilla and NSF offer $2M prize to decentralize the web - livingparadox
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/21/2-million-prize-decentralize-web-apply-today/
======
tomfitz
CJDNS is a self-organising IP address allocation and routing layer. A node's
public key acts as its IPv6 address, and routing uses a DHT of those nodes.

This style of network has the property that you can take two independent CJDNS
networks, link them together, and all nodes are mutually addressable/routable.
This is in contrast to The Internet, whose addressing is centralised on IANA.

cjdns is moderately active, though most links between nodes are via an overlay
on top of the public Internet. The goal is to have physical/wireless links
between geographically close nodes.

Use [https://peers.fc00.io/](https://peers.fc00.io/) to find a cjdns node
geographically close to you.

Decentralized protocols such as ipfs/scuttlebutt work particularly well on
cjdns, as a file shared on ipfs in one network, will automagically become
available on another network, once those networks are linked.

cjdns:
[https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns)

~~~
kyledrake
CJDNS + IPFS to me is a grand vision for an idealized, completely distributed
web. Combine that with some sort of distributed naming system (Namecoin,
etc.), and you have a system that requires literally zero central authorities
to operate. You just generate your own IPv6 addresses that are derived from a
private key you generate yourself, and it works out of the box with all
existing applications that support IPv6. No more IP registries
(ARIN/APNIC/RIPE/etc), no more BGP. It's a network that can sustain itself by
millions of individuals users routing internet traffic by peering directly
with other users and datacenters.

As I understand it, there was some way to de-anonymize traffic to a certain
extent (which is still far better than the current situation), and that turned
off some of the "purists" which is just a shame. From a practical perspective,
even with some issues, getting rid of BGP is more than enough of a benefit.

I can't express enough how brilliant CJDNS is to me, it's really a magical
idea. Which is not to say there won't be potential issues (even potentially
existentially damning issues), but wow. I'd love to see this project move
forward and get more attention. It's the first thing I've seen that really
made me think about how we could design a better internet than the one we have
today.

FWIW, I'm already happy to just nominate the CJDNS project as a potential
winner of this prize, already.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
Is the CJDNS protocol written up anywhere so it can be reviewed? I'm curious
but don't see any explanation of its operation anywhere.

~~~
tomfitz
[https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/doc/Whitepape...](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/doc/Whitepaper.md)

------
maxton
I think the headline here is misleading. What they are offering is a prize to
decentralize the _internet_ \- the actual network to which people connect in
order to use the web. Judging from the other comments here, I don't think a
lot of people have actually read the article.

IPFS and blockchain are technologies that are built on top of the internet -
they assume a network connection already exists.

~~~
kefka
> IPFS and blockchain are technologies that are built on top of the internet -
> they assume a network connection already exists.

I wont speak for blockchains. Call them by the boring name as "Append-only
databases with a consensus mechanism on what to add, with a proof-of-something
to affirm that work of some soft was done".

IPFS is different. They have already planned that IP4 isn't the next thing. Or
IP6, or IP8, and on. They created what they call a MultiAddr that encodes the
protocol definition to explain to peers and IPFS what protocol stack to use,
and then lay IPFS on top of that.

Obviously when a new protocol comes into play, they add a new multiaddr type
for the new protocol, and off you go.

------
Animats
It can be done. It has been done, many times, from 1980s amateur packet radio
to 2000s WiFi meshes. It's not inherently difficult. The hard problem is doing
it with enough bandwidth to support cat videos. Netflix, and bloated web
pages.

Suppose you had a distributed emergency IP radio network available that could
provide 56Kb as long as at least one solar powered node per square kilometer
was working. It would deliver VoIP and SMS, plus slow data connections. It
would have HF links for long-haul connections even if telco services were
unavailable. Who would use it?

FEMA tried distributing HF radios to first responder agencies, as a backup in
case everything else went down. They can't even get most agencies to turn them
on and talk for a monthly test.[1]

[1] [https://www.dhs.gov/shares](https://www.dhs.gov/shares)

~~~
hossbeast
What if nodes were incentivized to route traffic for others via crypto
currency, e.g. proof of routing. Maybe then you could get real bandwidth.

------
femto
US based only? A pity.

People had a pretty good go at this in the early 2000s, when WiFi arrived on
the scene. Most of those networks died and the ones that remain never took
over the world [1]. The sticking points in the efforts that I was involved in
were:

1) Hassle in obtaining and setting up the hardware (particularly permanent
antennas).

2) Lack of density, meaning it was hard to find others to connect to.

3) Address allocation and routing never really worked out, due to the need for
central coordination.

I've been thinking about it ever since... Lots of ideas, but no 100% practical
solution (yet).

It'll be interesting to see what happens this time, after 15 years of further
development.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_net...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_networks_by_region)

~~~
kpcyrd
Some of these communities are actually very alive:
[https://map.hamburg.freifunk.net/](https://map.hamburg.freifunk.net/)

------
jdormit
The developers behind Scuttlebutt [0] should apply for this! It pretty much
perfectly meets Mozilla's criteria.

[0]
[https://github.com/dominictarr/scuttlebutt](https://github.com/dominictarr/scuttlebutt)

~~~
jerrysievert
I am fortunate to consider Dominic a friend (he's slept on my couch, and I
have shared beers with him in multiple cities), but I don't think that's quite
enough to decentralize to meet the criteria.

I think that the real solution requires caching, lookups, and multiple types
of access through fingerprinted (sorry, can't say "secure") forwarding and
proxying. It's a big task, but I do think that a small example could be built
within the next year.

Heck, even LoRa, with the right software behind it could be a contender, if
married to the correct technology.

Hm. That gets me thinking.

------
jeffdavis
This challenge isn't about the _web_ , it's about the _internet_.

Web centralization is another problem and one I'm more worried about. Google
and facebook control so much of it and they are so opaque.

------
wintorez
I think the future of the web will be peer-to-peer communication between
browsers. When you open a web site, you will join a pool of users who are
already on that site. There will be some super nodes, who act similar seeders,
and the rest will be leachers. The more you spend time on a site, the more you
will become a seeder.

------
fragmede
The team working on Lantern/Outernet is working in this area, using a
satellite to beam wikipedia to all of the Earth.

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lantern-a-global-
satellit...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lantern-a-global-satellite-
data-radio)

[https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/outernet/](https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/outernet/)

[http://outernet.is/](http://outernet.is/)

------
TheCycoONE
The OLPC project using wireless mesh networks essentially addressed these very
problems.

------
michaelobriena
[https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/)

~~~
tenryuu
Is this just going to be linked? Or does no one care to talk about it

------
EGreg
Does this include software or only hardware applications?

------
Unbeliever69
Isn't this the problem that Blockstack is solving?

------
rdiddly
Once again, real life imitates the Silicon Valley show...

~~~
monkmartinez
I don't know why you are being downvoted... I immediately thought Pied Piper,
then had a bit of chuckle. Jian Yang!!!!

------
tabeth
Isn't the web already inherently decentralized (of course we all know there
are forces trying to create their own walled gardens)? In the end, you just
have to make something better that requires decentralization, and then it will
win. In this way, the "survival of the fittest" for memes holds.

What's a problem that only a decentralized web can solve?

\- Privacy? (Most) People don't care. Irrelevant.

\- Security? (Most) People don't care. Irrelevant.

etc.

Even Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies would be irrelevant if it were not for
their volatility, resulting in speculation, creating a feedback loop.

~~~
detaro
I thought the article pretty clearly framed the problem they try to solve as
"benefits of connectivity for places and situations that don't have direct or
regular connectivity to the internet (and thus no reliable access to
centralized services)".

~~~
tabeth
I don't see the relevance of this comment to my original point. Also, why do
you need a whole new "internet" to make what you describe (and the article
describes) as an offline application?

