[HN Gopher] Meshtastic is an encrypted communications platform f...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Meshtastic is an encrypted communications platform for the Lora RF
       protocol
        
       Author : buescher
       Score  : 237 points
       Date   : 2022-07-07 16:34 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (meshtastic.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (meshtastic.org)
        
       | iseanstevens wrote:
       | This is a great project. Still work in progress but so much
       | better than expensive commercial closed source products that are
       | similar
        
       | ComputerCat wrote:
       | Not going to lie, this is pretty neat!
        
       | nonrandomstring wrote:
       | Over the years I've had students doing "people net" style
       | meshing, BATMAN, opportunistic routing, stuff for warzones or
       | emergency coms for disaster areas.
       | 
       | We learned a great place to test this is _festivals_.
       | 
       | Lots of endpoint mobility. New nodes coming in and out of the
       | network. Terrible 4/4G cell coverage, so few alternatives. Dead
       | batteries. Shadow zones. Fairly chilled out delivery time
       | constraints. Everything you need to tweak your protocols.
       | 
       | I hope someone into playing with this will set up a larger scale
       | experiment at Glastonbury, Burning Man or another big music
       | festival.
        
         | erichocean wrote:
         | You can do the same thing with Bluetooth LE, which everyone
         | already has.
         | 
         | Low-bandwidth, but doesn't require any "human in the loop" to
         | establish the mesh.
        
           | eternityforest wrote:
           | I wonder how hard it would ve to extend the Meshtastic code
           | to send data via BLE phone to phone as well as LoRa.
           | 
           | It's usually done on an ESP32, so fixed repeaters can already
           | handle it, and it would let you try it out without actually
           | having the hardware.
        
           | retrac wrote:
           | Bluetooth LE is aiming at something slightly different. When
           | people say several kilometres with LoRa, they do mean in
           | actual real-world applications.
           | 
           | Two LoRa transceivers with dinky antennas indoors will do > 1
           | km in a suburban environment. With a well-sited outdoor
           | antenna for one of the transceivers that will increase to 5+
           | km. Two well-sited outdoor antennas can do 20+ km if they
           | have line-of-sight.
           | 
           | There's nothing else quite like it at the moment. Cellular
           | networks are close, but higher bandwidth, power, and of
           | course, licensed spectrum. One could cover an entire large
           | city with a LoRa network with a dozen well-placed nodes. Its
           | most common application to date is along those lines, with
           | utility meters and such.
        
             | erichocean wrote:
             | I thought this thread was about trying mesh networking at a
             | festival. Hence my suggestion to give Bluetooth LE a try.
        
           | tagami wrote:
           | 100m vs up to 8km...
        
           | noman-land wrote:
           | LoRa can get you tens of kilometers line of sight, and
           | sometimes over a hundred. What kind of reasonable distances
           | can one get with BLE?
        
             | buescher wrote:
             | BLE Long Range mode can get somewhat over a kilometer line-
             | of-sight, open-field range.
        
               | bigiain wrote:
               | Is that something a typical phone can do though? Is it
               | just a bluetooth config thing that a phone typically has
               | access to modify, or is BLE Long Range a specific set of
               | electronics/antennas that you won't find in your spare
               | Samsung device?
        
             | Spivak wrote:
             | "My car can go 450 miles per hour 0-60 in 1.7 seconds"
             | 
             | Well cool story bro but the speed limit is still 65. LoRa
             | is an amazing technology for exactly what you describe but
             | festivals are basically "I have very little line of sight
             | but a fuckton of devices."
             | 
             | This leads to two different solutions, high bandwidth short
             | wave communication bouncing between everyone, and putting
             | towers above everyone which is what cell companies do.
             | Ground to ground LoRa is neat but not necessarily better.
        
               | bigiain wrote:
               | I've used Meshtastic as small (5000-ish person)
               | festivals, and even with higher bandwidth settings and
               | stock rubber ducky antennas, ground to ground ranges
               | through trees and people of around 1km worked just fine
               | (with the expected shadows behind hills). This was only a
               | small number of devices, I have no idea how badly
               | performance would drop off if 10% or 50% of the attendees
               | were trying to tx/rx Meshtastic or LoRaWAN signals.
        
               | vvanders wrote:
               | LoRa is designed to handle hundreds of devices in the
               | same area since the commercial use case is densely
               | deployed nodes. The spreading factor is orthogonal so it
               | is able to multiplex in the same frequency assuming your
               | data rate is constrained enough for the largest spread
               | factor.
               | 
               | There's a bit more on involved with gateways and
               | coordination that you don't get in P2P mode but the PHY
               | has the pieces you need I'd you wanted to do something
               | similar.
        
         | wgx wrote:
         | Over my decades of visiting Glastonbury I can report that
         | cellphone coverage has gone from "it works for some calls but
         | no data" to "perfect 3G data everywhere on site". The cell
         | phone infrastructure companies ship in lots of portable masts.
        
         | dan000892 wrote:
         | I have this same need and am preparing an evaluation of
         | Meshtastic in the field this month.
         | 
         | I'm part of a volunteer EMS division within a paid fire
         | department and we staff foot teams and medical carts at large
         | events at our 90,888-capacity stadium (football, concerts, etc;
         | well over 100k including tailgaters at our biggest game of the
         | year) and music festivals with 10-40k attendees on the adjacent
         | golf course.
         | 
         | While we have fancy Motorola APX 8000XE, our on-site dispatch
         | wholly lacks visibility into unit locations and the abysmal
         | cell service precludes software solutions leveraging mobile
         | phones.
        
           | jonah wrote:
           | Doesn't Motorola have location tracking systems which
           | integrate or add-on to their radio systems? I know we used to
           | have this on some of our VHF radios.
           | 
           | You could also look at using APRS for location tracking...
           | 
           | Edit: Also - you should be able to set up your phones with
           | priority network access on FirstNet, right?
        
         | whatthewonk wrote:
         | What about LoRa and Xray Satellite Comm? Couldnt you set up
         | like noded repeaters as well for a ground back up / stronger
         | signal along side as well? I have a bunch different arduino
         | coding to do it, but finding a group of people to actually try
         | to implement it wider scale deems to be harder than one would
         | think. lmfao
        
         | c7h wrote:
         | We have tested it successfully with 4 nodes last week at the
         | Fusion Festival in Germany - one of those where you have to
         | battle constant cellular network outages - and were surprised
         | to randomly see fellow meshtastic users extending the mesh
         | network. It was one of those "open source technology is
         | amazing" moments :D.
        
           | aaaaaaaaata wrote:
           | This comment will go down in history.
           | 
           | Super neat stuff.
        
             | faxmeyourcode wrote:
             | Only if this comment can be preserved on the off-grid mesh
             | ;)
        
             | whatthewonk wrote:
             | Cool stuff, slick stuff, neat stuff.
        
           | wrycoder wrote:
           | Paging Cory Doctorow
        
             | whatthewonk wrote:
        
         | na85 wrote:
         | I'd love to see a protocol designed for that sort of thing that
         | hops from phone to phone without explicit intervention from the
         | user.
         | 
         | No setting up a wifi hotspot and having people connect to you.
         | No need to be connected to wifi at all. No fucking with
         | Bluetooth.
         | 
         | I'm not even sure if there's a way to do it but that's what I
         | really want. Carrying a separate LoRa device is just one more
         | thing I'll forget to pack or charge.
        
         | foolfoolz wrote:
         | they test this stuff regularly at festival and sporting events.
         | i met a guy walking around outside lands with a suitcase full
         | of phones. he was working for verizon to ensure the mobile base
         | stations were appropriately powered
        
         | livueta wrote:
         | Burning Man is one of the the primary usecases of one of the
         | core devs, so yeah, it should definitely get some good exercise
         | in that kind of context. Another acquaintance is a PAX admin
         | and looking into it for similar reasons.
        
           | bigiain wrote:
           | I've not been following along too closely for the last couple
           | of years (not a lot of need for or opportunity to use it in
           | Covid lockdown times), but the original lead dev's most
           | memorable (for me) main use case was for paragliding. Being
           | able to see where your friends are (and who's in good lift)
           | as a group of paragliders would be very useful. Having a
           | reliable long-is range way of letting your friends know where
           | you landed out would obviously be super useful as well.
        
         | buescher wrote:
         | I bet! I can imagine festivals being a good disaster
         | simulation.
         | 
         | Meshtastic appears to use a simple flooding algorithm which is
         | appropriate to what I understand to be the application - a
         | small group of outdoorspeople keeping tabs on each other with
         | short messages. One of my takeaways from a similar project I
         | worked on in a past life was that flooding works well for use
         | cases like that and just about anything more sophisticated is a
         | pretty serious research project. BATMAN etc looks like fun to
         | experiment with.
        
           | bigiain wrote:
           | > what I understand to be the application - a small group of
           | outdoorspeople keeping tabs on each other with short
           | messages.
           | 
           | One really neat thing (in my opinion) about Meshtastic, it
           | that it has support for GPS location in it's message scheme,
           | so GPS equipped devices (or devices paired to phones with GPS
           | on) can see where other mesh members are relative to them.
           | This is really cool in the festival-type use case. Being able
           | to easily see where your crew is whenever you want is great.
        
       | sweis wrote:
       | Is this using unauthenticated AES-CTR mode?
       | 
       | https://github.com/meshtastic/Meshtastic-device/blob/0447808...
       | 
       | https://github.com/meshtastic/Meshtastic-device/blob/0447808...
       | 
       | https://github.com/meshtastic/Meshtastic-device/blob/285413c...
        
       | angst_ridden wrote:
       | Around October 2020, there was a group of people putting up
       | battery powered LoRa repeater nodes in the hills around Los
       | Angeles. I had a few LilyGo TTGO units, one with DisasterRadio
       | and one with Meshtastic installed.
       | 
       | I could get occasional packets through to one of the nodes that
       | was about 6 miles away (line-of-sight).
       | 
       | My conclusion was that for a city, a much higher transceiver
       | density would be needed if you wanted viable communications. It's
       | not outside the realm of possibility. The units themselves are
       | less than $20/each in bulk, and could be powered with a $5 solar
       | panel/battery rig. Placement of the units would be key.
       | 
       | I saw some Hong Kong activists online post designs for
       | "throwable" battery-powered units. The idea there was to toss out
       | dozens of them during events where non-internet mesh
       | communications would be needed. Seems like an interesting use
       | case, although jamming and the end points (e.g., burner phones
       | with WiFi->LoRa or Bluetooth->LoRa) are still the weak points in
       | a scheme like that.
        
         | delabay wrote:
         | Check out helium network. Crazy LoRaWAN density in LA.
        
       | metadaemon wrote:
       | Is there any concern with encrypted packets sent over radio and
       | the FCC?
        
         | sitzkrieg wrote:
         | this is ISM, so no
        
           | metadaemon wrote:
           | Yeah I guess if you're on 915MHz in the US you're good. 868,
           | not so much.
        
         | buescher wrote:
         | Not if you're operating within part 15 limits. But if you're
         | operating your Lora radio as an amateur radio operator, then
         | yes.
        
       | thcipriani wrote:
       | I bought a couple of these from aliexpress fully assembled[0]
       | (along with some massive terrifying batteries[1]). They're cool
       | little devices. You can send messages via the app on your phone
       | or by plugging them into your computer via USB. There's evidently
       | also some wifi connectivity that I haven't experimented with at
       | all.
       | 
       | Message shows up in the chat room on the phone and on the other
       | devices linked to the room. Planning to play with them for
       | camping Soon(tm).
       | 
       | [0]: <
       | https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2255800992363816.html?spm=a2...>
       | [1]: <https://www.18650batterystore.com/products/sanyo-
       | ncr18650ga>
        
       | olah_1 wrote:
       | Another similar project: https://reticulum.network/
        
         | RF_Savage wrote:
         | Meshtastic seems to be the most widespread one so far. And with
         | the best hardware support.
         | 
         | Reticulum looks interesting, but what does it bring to the
         | table compared to previous efforts?
        
           | ryukafalz wrote:
           | Having looked at things like this before (including
           | Meshtastic) the thing that stuck out to me about Reticulum is
           | that it's carrier-agnostic. LoRa is cool, but being able to
           | extend the network over arbitrary channels sounds very
           | appealing.
        
             | rcoder wrote:
             | Reticulum also needs a general-purpose computer -- RPi,
             | laptop, etc. -- that can run the Python daemon that
             | actually handles network traffic.
             | 
             | Meshtastic doesn't use or provide a TCP/IP stack (aside
             | from a limited TUN interface wrapper which is really more
             | of a proof-of-concept) but any device that can connect to a
             | node using WiFi, BLE, or USB serial can use the network.
        
               | ryukafalz wrote:
               | Yeah, that does seem to be the main downside from what I
               | can tell. Although Meshtastic devices seem to generally
               | require a companion device to use most of their
               | functionality, so I wonder how much that matters at this
               | stage.
               | 
               | I definitely would like a small stand-alone communicator
               | type device at some point though, and yes, that's
               | probably more feasible with Meshtastic at this point.
               | (Though there are Feather boards that can run Linux too
               | which I've thought about playing around with.)
        
             | RF_Savage wrote:
             | But doesn't carrier agnostic in this context mean that it
             | is very hard to coordinate with people to have compatible
             | hardware?
             | 
             | A nice compatible routing protocol does not help when
             | people have a mix of LoRa, commodity 2.4GHz and 5GHz wifi
             | as the physical layer. And then add in more esoteric stuff
             | like 3.6GHz CBRS, 433MHz NPR-70, 900MHz Ubiquiti radios or
             | new 802.11ah sub-1GHz radios.
        
               | ryukafalz wrote:
               | Maybe, but if you want to connect networks between two
               | nearby towns for example, it'd be nice to be able to run
               | that off commodity hardware that's a bit higher-bandwidth
               | than what you'll get on LoRa.
               | 
               | And realistically I suspect that people using it for the
               | same sort of use cases they'd use Meshtastic for will be
               | using the same LILYGO (and similar) hardware.
        
       | nope96 wrote:
       | What kind of bandwidth and latency would you get using this? Say,
       | in the suburbs of a major city, two people 5 miles apart... how
       | many bytes/second?
       | 
       | I'd love to see something like old school BBS systems take off
       | again, an off the grid/off the internet network for hobbyists.
       | 
       | According to https://meshtastic.discourse.group/t/data-bandwidth-
       | and-late... "But for the default very long range config it takes
       | about 3 seconds to send 60ish bytes." Hmm, a bit slower than a
       | 300 baud modem.
        
         | airbreather wrote:
         | If you are licensed there are 5W repeaters for 70cm under $100
         | - https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/194144864187.
         | 
         | Also, you can buy 1 watt Lora modules made by Ebyte, Sparkfun
         | sell them.
        
           | wrycoder wrote:
           | In the US, the 70 cm ham band is 420 - 450 MHz. The
           | transceiver you referenced is listed for 410 - 441 MHz. It
           | could be used by a licensed ham to transmit data, if he/she
           | determines how to modify or control it to avoid transmitting
           | on the 410 - 420 MHz frequencies. It would also be necessary
           | to send station identification[0] per Section 97.119(a) of
           | the rules, which requires an amateur station to transmit its
           | "assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of
           | each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a
           | communication."
           | 
           | It would also be necessary to assure that any harmonics of
           | 433 MHZ were within regulated limits.
           | 
           | EDIT: ETCI has specified 433 - 434 MHz as a LoRa band. In the
           | US, the ARRL band plan[1] specifies those frequencies as
           | auxiliary/repeater links, so they should be usable for LoRa,
           | assuming no local frequency coordination disputes arise. The
           | radio in question should be configured by the ham for that
           | frequency.
           | 
           | EDIT2: In the US, and in general worldwide, hams can only
           | communicate with other hams. So, 433 MHz LoRa would be
           | limited to a mesh exclusively between hams, and with the
           | necessary identification added. Unless you have specific
           | reasons for using higher power, are a ham, and know what
           | you're doing, it would be wise to use standard commercial
           | LoRa radios, and stick to the 902 - 928 MHz radios in the US.
           | (Which is shared with the 33 cm ham band - but the LoRa
           | radios are low power.)
           | 
           | [0] http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-proposes-18-000-fine-in-
           | louisia...
           | 
           | [1] http://www.arrl.org/band-plan
        
             | airbreather wrote:
             | In the stipulated Lora bands in most countries generally
             | you get increased wattage allowable, but only allowed to
             | transmit 1% of the time, or similar.
             | 
             | This is less punitive than it seems, especially with the
             | preamble "chirp" you can keep a link "alive" with a handful
             | of seconds every ten minutes or so, without transmitting a
             | message.
             | 
             | If the Rx woke up once a minute for a few seconds on a
             | synched clock, then you are never more than a minute away
             | from a message. This also aids in power management for
             | battery life.
             | 
             | I am not sure how it would be policed, and what time period
             | is acceptable for measuring, eg per hour, or is it ok one
             | weekend a year at 20% continuous duty cycle, and
             | technically is it per device or per user, and so on. (I
             | think I know the reasonable answers to these questions,
             | just saying).
             | 
             | But intent obviously is with higher power and range to
             | ensure a minimum number of devices can operate in a given
             | region.
             | 
             | But you can broadcast, so one transmission can hit many
             | other users, and they could re-broadcast on your behalf as
             | a store and forward type protocol, all for one transmission
             | by you.
        
         | AdamH12113 wrote:
         | I'm not sure about Meshtastic, but in LoRaWAN, with the largest
         | spreading factor (= maximum range) the maximum packet size is
         | 11 bytes. And you get maybe one packet per second at most.
         | Meshtastic is its own protocol and uses repeaters (and wider
         | channels?), so I would expect them to do better, but not
         | several orders of magnitude better.
         | 
         | I worked on LoRaWAN systems a couple years ago, and from what I
         | found the biggest determinant of performance was what frequency
         | band you're in. US915 has a 400ms dwell time limit for single
         | transmissions, while EU868 has a 1% duty cycle limit. LoRa was
         | designed for sending _small_ amounts of data _infrequently_ --
         | that 's the "low-power" in LPWAN. Where I worked we were
         | pushing it to the limits to get a couple hundred bytes per
         | second at close range. LoRa does have some nice properties and
         | I'm glad to see people using it outside of LoRaWAN, which is
         | somewhat bulky for point-to-point communication.
        
           | rcoder wrote:
           | Meshtastic can carry a bit more data per packet -- 200-ish
           | bytes, IIRC -- but the same duty cycle/dwell time constraints
           | apply.
           | 
           | The routing model also makes it hard to add more than a few
           | dozen nodes to a mesh. For small groups over wide distances
           | that's absolutely fine, but it isn't a great option if you
           | want to connect large numbers of _people_, unless said people
           | are clustered around a few devices sharing WiFi or BLE
           | connection time. (Meshtastic also doesn't really support this
           | use case b/c of a "one device == one user/identity/mailbox"
           | model, but that's an application-level choice, not something
           | imposed by the underlying network.)
        
             | tekknolagi wrote:
             | Does it support protocol upgrades in the case that some
             | nodes are within BLE range? That way someone could act as a
             | local router.
        
       | jokowueu wrote:
       | I've joined their discord a while back
       | 
       | But few time a year I go online and just try to find a simple
       | Lora device with good range a qwerty keyboard and a simple OS
       | 
       | It still doesn't exist . Maybe in a few years
        
         | itintheory wrote:
         | There's a LoRa model of the Popcorn Pocket P.C. which will have
         | a physical keyboard and run Linux, however they're a couple
         | years behind manufacturing schedule so it's a little doubtful
         | if it'll ever actually be for sale.
        
         | noman-land wrote:
         | You still can't get this on one package but the closest I've
         | come so far is using a LoRa capable feather board [0] and a
         | keyboard feathering [1]. This gets you much of the way there.
         | 
         | [0] https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-feather/lora-radio-
         | feath...
         | 
         | [1] https://www.solder.party/docs/keyboard-featherwing/
        
         | squarefoot wrote:
         | The Pinephone has a LoRa capable add-on case, but the software
         | still is in its infancy: https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-
         | pinephone-pro-pindio-lo...
         | 
         | The Pocket Popcorn Computer might be closer to what you are
         | looking for, if and when it will be ready for purchase.
         | https://pocket.popcorncomputer.com/
        
       | foobarbecue wrote:
       | What's a typical range between nodes for systems like this? Just
       | looking for order of magnitude -- are we talking 1km? 10km?
        
         | edrxty wrote:
         | I work with similar systems a lot, given the modulation and
         | power output, 1-10km would be a reasonable range band, 10km
         | being line of sight under real world conditions, 1km being
         | light urban propagation. It could theoretically be much worse
         | in a dense urban environment with a high noise floor but I
         | think you can safely put it around or slightly better than the
         | performance of those blister pack FRS walkie talkies.
         | 
         | For comparison, my APRS mobilinkd modem attached to a 5 Watt
         | handheld 144mhz radio will routinely do an order of magnitude
         | better and the same modem on my 50w mobile car radio will
         | approach two orders (double the base range plus additional
         | antenna efficiencies).
        
       | londons_explore wrote:
       | Remember that if anyone manages to get any kind of mesh network
       | working that regular users can use, they will get immediate and
       | very hard pushback from mobile network providers.
       | 
       | People will stop spending $1000/year to have a cell connection if
       | they can browse the web and message friends using your mesh
       | network for free.
        
         | buescher wrote:
         | My prediction is that no one will ever get the "join us now and
         | share the bandwidth" model of mesh networking to work for any
         | reasonable definition of "work", for both technical and
         | social/political/human-being reasons. No industry conspiracy
         | will be necessary.
        
           | chrononaut wrote:
           | Doesn't this count? https://www.nycmesh.net/
        
         | supertrope wrote:
         | Mesh networks will always perform poorly. Each wireless hop
         | cuts throughout in half. People don't want their device's
         | battery charge and timeslots used to relay other people's
         | traffic. To simulate the slowness, use Tor full time.
        
           | Saris wrote:
           | The bandwidth issue could be helped by having multiple radios
           | like LoRaWAN does right? I think they use up to 8 radios on 8
           | different channels to have simultaneous data transfer with
           | multiple clients.
        
         | z3c0 wrote:
         | That's only if they make it past major ISPs, who have all
         | decided that acting as a mesh bridge is against their terms of
         | service.
        
           | derbOac wrote:
           | Yet another reason for competition in the form of municipal
           | ISPs.
        
       | ajsnigrutin wrote:
       | I tried it some time ago, and the only way to communicate was to
       | join a channel with someone you already knew (so basically it
       | needed two(+) people to synchronize first in person or over some
       | other channel, and then chat via meshtastic).
       | 
       | Is there something that supports a "public" chatroom? Something
       | that would allow you to set up a node on a window in a large
       | city, become a point in a mesh and be able to join a chatroom
       | with all the other people (that you don't know yet) and chat
       | there?
       | 
       | I don't personally know anyone else who'd use this over some
       | "normal" chat platform, but live in a building high enough to be
       | able to set a possibly usable meshpoint to connect with other
       | enthousiasts and chat about random stuff there.
        
         | livueta wrote:
         | The firmware has a 'default' channel where the psk is well-
         | known: https://meshtastic.org/docs/settings/channel
         | 
         | > Selecting a default or any of the simple values from the
         | following table will use publicly known encryption keys.
         | They're shipped with Meshtastic source code and thus, anyone
         | can listen to messages encrypted by them. They're great for
         | testing and public channels.
         | 
         | In $west_coast_city I've gotten a fair amount of random pings
         | on default settings.
         | 
         | Other projects (using other base technologies) like
         | https://www.arednmesh.org/ are more focused on joining an
         | already-existing network than making your own.
        
       | sharmin123 wrote:
        
       | goodpoint wrote:
       | It's a pity that LoRa is all proprietary and patented.
       | 
       | An open alternative would provide more opportunities for
       | experimenting.
       | 
       | EDIT: there are alternatives like HaLow and DASH7 on paper but
       | nothing you can buy (for 4 euro like LoRa)
        
         | marcodiego wrote:
         | I sometimes think about buying one of those LoRa arduino
         | shields for some experiments. What exactly is proprietary in
         | these?
        
           | goodpoint wrote:
           | The chipset, the modulation, the protocol itself, it's all
           | proprietary and patented.
        
         | pabs3 wrote:
         | Range is lower for those though I thought.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Maybe HaLow is more open.
        
         | edrxty wrote:
         | M17 is possibly what you're looking for? Not specifically mesh
         | but could be used similarly or extended. It's a a protocol that
         | provides data and digital voice transmissions and works (with
         | some modification) on a few existing commercial grade handheld
         | radios running OpenRTX open source firmware. The only thing we
         | need is a radio that has a Bluetooth module.
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | This project has been going on for a while.
       | 
       | I heard about it (here), a couple of years ago. I think the main
       | reason that I didn't get involved, was because there's quite a
       | bit of "some assembly required" with the project.
       | 
       | I don't really have a problem with that, but I wasn't really up
       | to setting up a tech bench, all over, again.
       | 
       | I was trying to work with a proprietary system, and they were
       | quite uncooperative. Once I have the wraps on the project I'm
       | doing now, I may see what I can do.
        
         | livueta wrote:
         | You're correct that if you buy the most popular board for it
         | (LilyGO T-Beam) from the source, you need to do some light
         | soldering to get the screen on, and need to figure out a case
         | on your own. That said, there's now an ecosystem of people on
         | Etsy and other places who'll sell you a pre-soldered board in a
         | nice printed case, e.g. everything under
         | https://www.etsy.com/shop/QuantumShadow3D. Maybe worth
         | considering if you just want to kick the tires without
         | literally getting your hands dirty.
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | Thanks!
           | 
           | My dance card is a bit full, now, but this is the kind of
           | stuff that makes my heart warm. I've been messing with
           | hardware forever (my current project is all software).
           | 
           | Is that the main guy behind Meshtastic? I'd probably just get
           | a couple of the prebuilt radios, but not until it was time
           | for me to start working on the project.
        
             | livueta wrote:
             | > Is that the main guy behind Meshtastic?
             | 
             | AIUI he's not affiliated with the project, just makes good
             | cases. If your interest is in financially supporting the
             | project, there's stickers
             | (https://meshtastic.discourse.group/t/limited-run-
             | meshtastic-...) and donations
             | (https://opencollective.com/meshtastic). I think LilyGO
             | said something about donating a portion of sales of devices
             | pre-flashed with Meshtastic to the project but I haven't
             | kept up with that thread.
        
               | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
               | Cool.
               | 
               | I'll be going back there, when I pick up the baton, once
               | again.
               | 
               | Thanks!
        
       | nullc wrote:
       | Does meshtastic still have the problem that if there are too many
       | nearby devices they will "capture" messages and use up all their
       | hop count before they make it far?
        
       | walterbell wrote:
       | Are duty cycles voluntary with Meshtastic, as with LoRaWAN?
       | https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/forum/t/lorawan-duty-cycle-...
        
       | jcbcn wrote:
       | I've been thinking about this idea recently and finally I've
       | stumbled across a real world implementation!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-08 23:02 UTC)