Post #3717

Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factom Bridge
[QUOTE="sanfranseahawk, post: 3709, member: 103"]Hi [USER=17]@factom_matt[/USER]

I find myself reading and re-reading your application and supporting documents, and I'm having a really hard time conceiving of what you're specifically trying to accomplish from a "furthering the protocol" standpoint.

For those of us that are less technically inclined, such as myself, could you please elaborate on what you mean by building out Mesh integrations? I understand in a general way that you intend to build out a sort of bridge that connects the Factom protocol to a variety of use cases and that the networks interacting with the blockchain do not have to leave their mesh environment.... which sounds great, but I don't necessarily understand, with specificity, what kind of examples you're conjuring up as the ultimate effect (that furthers the protocol) of the development work you intend to perform.

tl;dr - Can you please ELI5 on exactly what sort of development you plan to do, ideally providing an example or two of something you can envision your development work producing?[/QUOTE]

Hello Sanfranseahawk,
Here are two scenarios of what we are proposing today. This does not mean we can't grow our scope in the future.
First, Open Garden has moved into the crypto realm and is about to run on OG tokens so the environment for them has changed in the last few months. Open Garden is the group that developed FireChat. FireChat is the application that was used in Egypt and Hong Kong when the government shut down the internet to stop everyone from showing the world what was going on. With the FireChat mesh network, the government couldn't stop it. The connections just daisy chained until they found the internet. When I was reading about that it occurred to me that a Factom Node would have been useful for provenance or just as a messaging system that doesn't have to expose your location.
Previously, OG was attempting to sell the functionality to create ad-hoc networks between devices with a proprietary SDK. That is a very loose description of what they were doing, but it appeared to be targeted at businesses. The functionality would be similar to the above. A deployable, secure network that can still leverage Factom without having to poke extra holes in the network or host a Factom follower.
The second scenario also relates to what I believe you are asking with the 'building out mesh integrations' part of your question. We have no intention of deploying another projects mesh network across the city of Austin or any other city using ANO funds. It is not an ethical issue, but we are trying to grow Factom, not some other mesh project. If there is a persistent mesh network running somewhere, it may be interesting to physically put a follower on that network. That may be a server or a server and a handful of devices to extend a mesh a couple hundred feet to the server. That is what we consider supporting or integrating with a mesh network.
The difference between the two scenarios is how much actual real-world interaction we have. Is it an ap on someone's device that we know nothing about or a server that one of us actually plugged in.
How does this build the protocol? There is no business case for providing provenance to protestors. As far as I know, there is no pot of money sitting around for a project like this. A few years from now the grant pool may have cleared all of the more important items off the list and get to something like this, but it really shouldn't be on top of the list right now. But, I would like to read an article someday that says these horrible things happened and the only reason we know the truth it is because ... Factom.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.