"Hacking" these days - purpose?

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.com
Thu Dec 17 04:51:21 UTC 2020


On 12/16/20 22:31, bzs at TheWorld.com wrote:

> I'm not so sure. If someone got the banks, credit card (fintech), big
> online shopping, etc (tho not a lot of etc needed) on board, the "head
> count" for that wouldn't be very large, and others would join
> (particularly retail) just to not be left out...
>
> One can build a quite different network on top of the existing
> infrastructure at least to get started, NEWSTUFF/IP.
>
> That would only then require buy-in by end-users but if that's what's
> on their phone etc and the only way they can access banks, shopping,
> etc.
>
> People here would deliver all those packets since it'd just look like
> IP and go from there. Reminds me of the old expression "when it's time
> to hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope" (when it comes
> time to replace this internet they will deliver our packets.)
>
> The obvious (to me) change would be positive id of anyone accessing
> that new network.
>
> The voice system seems to have achieved this to about a 99% level
> which is more than good enough. And it would be a boon to them also,
> no more annoyingly free voice/video stuff. By which I mean if they
> thought it was credible they might pony up a billion or two to get it
> going.
>
> Then if they hit some critical mass they can consider replacing IP and
> routing regimens etc also (the goal being largely to secure it), on
> top of the existing "wire" infrastructure.

All this would achieve is break-away networks, either atop or adjacent 
to the current Internet.

Considering that there are quite a few countries that have folk 
transacting more on their phones than via conventional banking means, 
with major content providers looking to get into that game, I don't see 
this working beyond a private experiment, that likely wouldn't get far.

But hey, it's 2020. Crystal balls aren't what they used to be.

Mark.


More information about the NANOG mailing list