This sounds to me like most retarded idea I've ever heard.
If smartphone SoCs were viable server platforms then you would buy them directly from the manufacturer instead of scavenging them from a landfill.
The entire idea is based around the cognitive dissonance of buying fully functioning hardware at low or no cost when the reason for the low cost is the fact that it's not fully functioning.
Exactly. I think you could make an interesting business off of this. Offer cheap hosting by letting the customer buy an old phone and then just charge them for running costs plus profit margin.
The low cost is because people no longer want the phones anymore because they can get "better", faster phones already. Thousands of old iPhones are shredded each year when they could technically be used as cheap extra computing power. I'm not very sure why you don't like this idea. :/
I would lie if I said this isn't fun which is probably the reason why people do it in the first place even though their explanations might make it worse than just reading this:
Asking what a monad is is like asking what an iterator is. It doesn't tell you very much what it actually does because it depends on the implementation. The iterator is just an interface. A bunch of functions that have to be correctly implemented according to certain rules.
It all first started with lazyness. FP developers wanted a new modern language developed from the ground up. It should be a pure language. The haskell developers soon realised the evaluation order of a pure language must not necessarily be fixed. Eventually lazyness was born. Lazyness was a unique and very appealing feature for a purely functional programmming language. However as soon as a haskell program had to leave it's protective shell and interact with the real world lazyness turned into a double edged sword!
FizzBuzzes were printing their buzzes and fizzes out of order! Chaos ensued and haskell developers returned back into the shell. After long years of work they have finally discovered it! A mechanism to force the evaluation order of a program to be partially sequential again! It is a new type of container that allows you to put another type inside it. However sometimes the only way to access the contained value is by giving the container a function that takes a the boxed value as input and returns another container with a boxed value inside! The value never escapes the box. And so was the (IO)monad born! You can now take two IO actions a and b and turn them into c which is a combination of a and b where the output of a is piped into b. Not only can we send messages to the outside world, we can also finally receive them!
Everyone was happy in haskell kingdom until the imperative migrants started writing monad tutorials... (including this one)
This story is fiction by the way.
As a bonus for all the wasted time. another crappy analogy: A cage inside a bird is given a machine that puts birds in cages. The regular tool called functor that only replaces what's inside the cage would give us a bird in a cage in a cage! The special tool gives us what we actually want! The tool named monad gives us a bird in a cage! No nested cages!
A phone battery only has around 10 watthours. That's less than 1 cent worth of electricity if you wait hours until it's mined empty. It's more effective to just donate a single cent than to let them mine on your phone.
Doesn't that make it completely pointless because updates are still centralised? It merely shifted trusting a single provider to trusting each user which is not a scalable solution.
The value add is so low you might as well just use IPNS and make people subscribe to IPNS addresses.
But it is scaleable. On scuttlebot you follow people just like you have friends in real life. I also don't need to ask the government permission to talk to that person. That is DEcentralized for you right there.
I don't really get it. Sure it's fine if one p2P app uses 3GB (1GB for the append only log, 2GB for a database with indices that can actually be queried) of data. What if you have several apps? Let's say 10. Then you need 30GB and because people only have 32GB to 64GB of storage on their phones the discussion ends right here.
I didn't downvote you. But your data sizes are arbitrary.
Why would something like a chat or email app need to hang onto that much history?
Imagine a distributed "email" app that uses networks of mutually trusted peers to deliver encrypted messages ("emails") asynchronously. My device doesn't need to hang onto your emails indefinitely. It only needs to hang onto them until they've been received. This could be done via explicitly sending receipts, or probably in most cases by giving stuff simple expiration dates. The sender would have the most incentive to hang onto the original message until its been delivered.
How this scales in terms of MB and GB is hugely dependent on how your application is configured, how frequently new data is emerging, the limits set by peers for how much they're willing to share, etc. But text is pretty cheap. I can't imagine storing 3 GB of yours or someone else's text emails on your phone, short term or long term. The raspberry pi plugged into the wall at your house can has much more storage anyway ;)
>Will I be able to communicate from my Librem 5 to other phones?
>Yes, you will be able to make regular unencrypted phone calls to any phone number. You will also be able to communicate securely by using the phone dialing application and messaging application, that can run on the Librem 5 phone, Android based phones, and iOS based phones, and any computing device.
