Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin Communications

Coders Used Ham Radio To Send Bitcoin From Canada To San Francisco (coindesk.com) 165

"In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind transaction, two developers working in separate countries have successfully sent a bitcoin lightning payment over radio waves," writes CoinBase.

An anonymous reader quotes their report: The completed payment effectively moved real bitcoin from Toronto, Canada, to San Francisco, California... But sending bitcoin over radio isn't just fun. Some researchers argue it actually has a necessary use case... The idea is that, while the internet can potentially be censored, it's not the only form of technology that can be used to send data from one part of the world to another, "in case China decides to censor bitcoin via the Great Firewall, or places like North Korea where there is no internet at all," as Bloomberg columnist Elaine Ou put it in an email to CoinDesk.

Technology infrastructure startup Blockstream licensed satellites that beam bitcoin to users around the world for similar reasons.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coders Used Ham Radio To Send Bitcoin From Canada To San Francisco

Comments Filter:
  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @04:08PM (#58248844)

    Wait until someone does this via moon-bounce. I can see the headline now: "Bitcoin coming from the Moon."
    Also since this is Lightning network aka off-blockchain, I'm wondering if the ham transmissions work with transaction disputing (which causes the Lightning transactions up to that point to go on-blockchain).

    • moon bitcoin already exists. but probably not the one you expect. link [moonbit.co.in]

    • >>Wait until someone does this via moon-bounce. I can see the headline now: "Bitcoin coming from the Moon."

      No, no you have that backwards. The correct headline will be "Bitcoin going to the moon".

  • See RFC 1149 or RFC 2549

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @04:15PM (#58248886)

    TFA is experimenting with using radios to transmit information long distances because they fear repressive regimes censoring data passed through the interwebs.

    This makes me wonder about why repressive regimes would allow the use of a communications mechanism that can't be censored in the first place.

    TFS mentions North Korea, well the magic interwebs have this to say about North Korea Licensing [wikipedia.org] of Ham Radios:

    Only North Korea and Yemen do not issue amateur radio licenses to their citizens, although in both cases a limited number of foreign visitors have been permitted to obtain amateur licenses in the past. HamCall.Net lists 19 amateur stations in North Korea assigned in the P5 series, although the specific call signs themselves remain unknown.[6] A Serbian amateur writes that he was "licensed" as P5A, but that he was not allowed to operate on either occasion he was in the country.

    • by dougmc ( 70836 )

      Only North Korea and Yemen do not issue amateur radio licenses to their citizens, although in both cases a limited number of foreign visitors have been permitted to obtain amateur licenses in the past.

      Ham radio operators need to be very careful when they're visiting "oppressive" regimes and trying to get those really rare contacts.

      Alas, what often happens is that people see their gear -- people being the police, customs, or just ordinary citizens -- and they assume that this person is a spy. The reality is that these people just want to operate in some rarely operated in area, but ... the locals aren't having it, and that's exactly what a spy would say.

      The hams may end up with their equipment confiscate

    • Not sure if its still true, but at point to have a ham radio license in Saudi Arabia you had to be a member of the royal family.

      US State Dept has a list of countries your allowed to handle 3rd party traffic for as well that is kind of interesting:

      http://www.arrl.org/third-part... [arrl.org]

  • Smoke Signal
    or Jungle Drums

    At least these would be interesting and somewhat novel ways to convey wireless data. It
    Wireless digital data is old hat, look at your cell phone, or just about anything else.

  • Sorry, not legal (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2019 @04:37PM (#58249020)

    "But sending bitcoin over radio isn’t just fun. Some researchers argue it actually has a necessary use case." Fun it may be, even 'necessary', but sorry, it isn't legal. FCC rules (97.3) forbid using amateur radio for pecuniary interests. Probably illegal in Canada and most other countries too.

    • by dougmc ( 70836 )

      You're right about the US laws, however if this transmission was made from Canada to the US that might avoid the legal issue in the US if the US station never transmitted any encrypted signal or any signal with a pecuniary interest -- receiving is not really limited under part 97, only transmitting.

      That said, I have no idea what the laws look like in Canada.

      This [blogspot.com] suggests that Canada's laws are a little more lax, but not too much so, so ... maybe?

      (Trivia: I'm amused (and not surprised) to see Bruce popping u

      • by ve3oat ( 884827 )
        Yes, illegal in Canada too, and for the same reasons it is illegal in the US. I have been licensed here in Canada (Amateur Radio VE3OAT) for 36 years and there has never been any question about the use of Amateur Radio for commercial purposes. I can't recall the details now but there have been several cases over the years that were prosecuted.
    • Not sure I agree actually - for instance its perfectly legal to order a pizza over ham radio (say via a phone patch) because the pecuniary interest isn't a ham. Pecuniary interest is basically being paid to operate the radio or radio service - there's a single exception for this - school teachers.

      I would say this violates rules against using ciphers over ham radio frequencies to obscure messages though: 97.309.

      • It seems to me this is not encrypted for the purposes of hiding the message. The message is public. What is encrypted is the verification. Anyone can read the message and know that it sends X BTC from address A to address B.

      • Not sure I agree actually - for instance its perfectly legal to order a pizza over ham radio (say via a phone patch) because the pecuniary interest isn't a ham.

        The pizza place isn't using ham radio. They're using the phone. Using the phone to order a pizza isn't illegal. The HAM involved doesn't have a pecuniary interest, perhaps.

        However, a bitcoin transaction is a monetary exchange -- pure pecuniary interest. You can't get around the law by saying bitcoin isn't money and thus isn't "pecuniary".

        Pecuniary interest is basically being paid to operate the radio or radio service

        No, it is not just being paid. It is monetary benefit. If you operate a business, say, and you use ham radio to discuss a business operations issue with someone, you're g

    • by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 )
      Also illegal per 97.113 as technically blockchain messages are encrypted; which for amateur radio is illegal even if the rule is not exactly well-enforced.
      • Also illegal per 97.113 as technically blockchain messages are encrypted; which for amateur radio is illegal even if the rule is not exactly well-enforced.

        The actual rule includes a bit about "obfuscation of meaning".

        The HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media, or mesh-net) people argue that they are not encrypting for obfuscation of meaning, they're doing it for access control. These are the folks who take COTS 2.4GHz wireless hardware and use it under amateur rules. It would be illegal to allow non-licensed folks to access that, so the "encryption" via the WEP or WPA keys is for access control. They "publish" the WEP or WPA keys on a website somewhere so in theory a

        • by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 )
          I had considered (before my life became really busy) asking the FCC to clarify whether digital signatures verified with a published public key would be allowable under this rule. Think they have bandwidth to consider something like this?
          • I think you are much better off not asking, since the knee-jerk reaction could be incorrect and create problems.

            A digital signature is not obscuring the meaning of anything. It does not meet the condition of the prohibition.

  • ... as a "shadow," Internet.

    We need a do-over. The current Internet sucks tater toes.

  • That kind of violates 2 legal requirements for amateur radio... The FCC regulations for amateur radio, part 97 specifies amateur (HAM) radio must be Non-commercial & encrypted. Sending money is inherently commercial which is prohibited on amateur frequencies & is pretty clearly a violation. Encryption vs signing arguments could be made, but it's a bit murky at best.

    Section 97.113 (4) “messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein”

    Part 97.3 (4):

    (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

    Part 97.113 (3) about explicitly prohibited activities:
    (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;

    • by Garin ( 26873 )

      Yeah it's an interesting question. Reading through their twitter etc. they claim they did actually transmit all keys for decoding their transmissions, and the transaction was "demonstration" and "experimental" rather than an actual commercial transaction (whatever that means). So I suppose they are attempting to follow the *spirit* of the laws as best they can while still conducting the proof-of-concept experiment. Whether the folks at ISEC and FCC would agree or not is another question, but I doubt anyone

      • Anyway I think it's a worthwhile experiment,

        Exactly what is different about sending bitcoin via a digital radio link compared to sending it by the normal digital internet link?

        Amateurs do "internet" via radio every day. They do long-distance digital communications every day. What, precisely, is different about this that makes it "an experiment" of any kind?

    • Encryption, on amateur radio, is completely forbidden except for a few times where it’s completely mandatory.

      Controlling remote hardware, for one - especially model aircraft! There’s also some compelling arguments to be made about control of remote radios, such as repeaters. In this case, encryption isn’t being used to obscure the content of the message, but to authenticate the message and prevent spoofing.

      Participating in a search-and-rescue operation, or any other time you have cause to

      • Encryption, on amateur radio, is completely forbidden except for a few times where it's completely mandatory.

        There is no time when it is mandatory. It is permitted for obfuscation of meaning under a limited set of circumstances, but mandatory nowhere.

        Controlling remote hardware, for one

        No, there is no exception for this, with the TWO exceptions for model aircraft and space stations. Simple remote control of other hardware is not exempted. For example, I may not control my repeater remotely using an encrypted signal.

        There's also some compelling arguments to be made about control of remote radios, such as repeaters.

        You might make such arguments, but the rules don't permit it.

        Participating in a search-and-rescue operation, or any other time you have cause to transmit someone's medical records or other PII.

        Please cite the relevant FCC Part 97 regulation that permits encryption f

        • There is no time when it is mandatory.

          It’s mandatory when HIPAA, and not pard 97, governs the dissemination of protected health information, and when your radio is your only way to call for a pickup. Though you should only transmit the relevant portions enciphered, of course. And it’d take a special kind of asshole to press charges for HIPAA violations under the circumstances, but I’d rather my ass be covered than not.

          No, there is no exception for this, with the TWO exceptions for model

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      And that rule is explicitly designed to make sure nothing of value can be done with ham radio. It includes bitcoin transfer of course.

      The point of ham radio is doing radio for the sake of doing radio. It is not a backend for a telecommunication service, for that, we have the internet and other frequency bands, licensed and not.

  • Ham Radio is USA and Canada does not permit communications that are encrypted. Can't use Ham Radio for this application as the laws are written.
    • You don't need to encrypt anything to transfer bitcoin. The blockchain is a list of transactions, and to spend money you recieved in a previous transaction, all you need to do is present the key to unlock the money stored in that transaction. So it's a function of cryptographic signing, but not encryption (technically you don't need to present your key, just prove that you have it).
      • still illegal as all hell, the FCC would kick in doors of people doing this, revoke licenses, levy fines and/or jail time.

        • No they wouldn't. Maybe a strongly worded letter...
          • News for you, the FCC does indeed arrest people and have them fined and/or jailed for amateur radio band violations.

            • by rfengr ( 910026 )
              They arrest them for interfering with licensed spectrum, particularly public safety. If you listen to the crap on 7.200 MHz, the FCC isn’t enforcing squat; they don’t have the resources.
              • HAM spectrum is licensed too. and people who abuse it do get arrested, with the help of us HAMS. We don't like people using the bands illegally.

      • If the law was actually written with the word "encrypted" in it, you might be correct. However, the actual regulation is more general - "unspecified digital codes must not be
        transmitted for the purpose of obscur-
        ing the meaning of any communica-
        tion. "

        I'm not sure how obscured that would be considered to be under the circumstances.

  • You would have to send it encrypted which isn't allowed over amateur radio. You're also not allowed to use amateur radio for commercial purposes either and each station in the contact must identify themselves at the start and end of the "conversation" and periodically usually every 10-15 minutes. So you'd not be able to send it encrypted nor be able to send it anonymously without BOTH parties breaking the terms of their licence. Depending on how well the respective country enforcement is it could mean fines
    • No, you don't. Bitcoin transactions are public. They are not encrypted.

    • and each station in the contact must identify themselves at the start and end of the "conversation" and periodically usually every 10-15 minutes.

      97.119: "... at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, ..." There is no "start of communications" requirement for identification, and no mention of "conversation".

  • Like writing a wallet address on a piece of paper and sending it in an envelope?

    Without independent access to the blockchain however, you can't verify your transaction. You'd have to trust the other party is being honest.

    The use-case of being in a country where your internet access is cut off, you need to put your trust in someone else to verify transactions.

    • Without independent access to the blockchain however, you can't verify your transaction. You'd have to trust the other party is being honest.

      Cryptocurrency simply cannot be transacted offline. At best, you can give someone a wallet, and (as you said) the other party is required to trust that you've accurately represented the value it holds and that you aren't immediately going to drain it into another wallet after conducting your real-world transaction.

      Unless you have access to the blockchain network, you have no way of verifying the amount contained in a wallet, and you can't securely transfer coin(s) to someone else's wallet.

      • That's mostly meaningless meaningless, though. Credit card transactions can't be made offline either. But you can still take a card imprint or write the number on paper and rely on pre-existing trust networks when submitting the transaction later.

        Bitcoin is the same, with the significant distinction that the trust networks are primitive and underdeveloped.

  • Before people start getting amateur licenses to transmit blockchain information, please note that doing so almost certainly violates FCC regulations in the U.S.

    The FCC is very specific with respect to ham radio: transmissions must not involve "pecuniary interests" for any of the parties involved in the message. That includes parties that may indirectly benefit from the message.

    Note the following from http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-s... [arrl.org]:

    Cross said that it does not matter what type of technology -- be it SSB,

  • About the censored network use case: radio can be triangulated, If you use it for an activity that upsets a totalitarian regime, they will find you to make it stop. It may be an unpleasant exprience.
  • 47 CFR Â97.113(a)(2) prohibits American amateurs' use of amateur radio for communications related to pecuniary interest. You can't even order a pizza via #hamradio. @eiaine KM6NCF may find herself in hot water if FCC are paying attention.
  • The FCC dictates one mustn'ttrade via ham radio
    • quite true, and in a larger sense the government can and does have the right to block/censure/shutdown/license/regulate radio communication just as it does the internet switching and data centers in various scenarios.

  • The frequency shown on the bandscope is not within authorized ham radio frequencies. The people mentioned are not licensed radio amateurs. The communication would have been illegal under two different Amateur Radio rules, one regarding encryption for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of a communication, and one regarding communications for remuneration.
    • by hoofie ( 201045 )

      I thought they were on 20m ? The Bandscope just shows the AF frequency.

    • by rerogo ( 1839428 )

      My read of the Lightning protocol spec [github.com] is that the meaning isn't obscured. An LN invoice is authenticated, but it isn't encrypted. I may be misinterpreting this spec, which I just found 5 minutes ago and kind of skimmed, but it makes sense: this is a request for a transaction on a fully public blockchain, so there can't really be anything private there.

      I can't tell if they're using testnet bitcoins in this, but that would be one way to avoid any commerce happening for the purposes of this demo. It does kind

    • The frequency IS within amateur radio frequencies: 20 Meters (14.0-14.35 MHz), the screenshot shows them at 14.200Mhz, USB.
      The people mentioned ARE licensed amateur radio operators: Elaine Ou, KM6NCF; Rodolfo Novak, VE3NAK.
  • Afaik you can't censor ham radio, but you can definitely track down the people sending signals and disappear them, and if you're really desperate you can jam the signal. How long until China determines ham is the devil and needs gone?
  • If you are intent on using this particular medium, then it should be trivial to add steganography to the equation and get past the "no encryption (as far as anyone could prove)" part. There are way to do that, where it would be impossible to prove stego was being used--as long as they don't have access to the software at either end.

  • Not to mention the fact that while the article pretends that sending Bitcoin via radio somehow removes government's ability to censor you, in order to legally use that spectrum, you need to first obtain a license from same government, which is revocable at any time. This is true in more countries than just the US.

  • You can also send it with flag signals, smoke signals and torches, it's data!

  • That's a direct violation of FCC regulations regarding ham radio operation. FCC regulations, Part 97 clearly states:

    97.115 Third party communications.

    (a) No amateur station shall transmit:

    (1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this part;

    (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;

    (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, includin

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Working...