4 ms·

I would love to see some sort of city-wide wifi, that would allow people to buy small amounts of data with bitcoin. You would connect to the access point, send

I would love to see some sort of city-wide wifi, that would allow people to buy small amounts of data with bitcoin. You would connect to the access point, send bitcoin/altcoin to the address generated, and get access to the internet until you had transferred the amount of data you had purchased. Non-homeless people would use such a service as well, but it would be especially valuable to homeless, who could be given bitcoin/altcoin or perhaps obtain it from crypto ATMs. Not having a physical address is a huge impediment to functioning in our society. Without a physical address, you can't have a credit card or a bank account. Without a credit card, you can't have a cell phone for internet access, or a gym membership to take a shower. But shower facilities or gyms that allowed you to buy one month at a time with crypto, coupled with internet access that could be purchased with crypto, would allow people to function pretty normally in this society without a physical address. Neither of these would need to be specifically for homeless, nor would they need to be tax payer funded.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
would not need to be an impediment to making a living It is still an impediment, but it is not a showstopper. If you start making enough money, you stop identifying as homeless. You either get back into housing or you start identifying as a digital nomad, which is simply a lifestyle choice. Even digital nomads talk about how that lifestyle can make it difficult to sit down and concentrate on your work. Being technically able to work from anywhere doesn't change the fact that lack of a dedicated work space (and routine, etc) tends to hamper productivity. Some digital nomads settle in someplace for a few weeks or months at a time in order to carve out blocks of productive time. Unlike well heeled digital nomads who can spend fair sums at cafes, homeless people tend to not be welcome to hang out on their laptop or tablet for hours at a time. They aren't presentable enough and they aren't spending enough money. They tend to get thrown out and told to not come back if they try to hang too long at a commercial establishment.
newnewpdro 9y ago
Pre-pay smartphones don't require a credit card, and have all the trappings of a normal smartphone's contract service. Urban areas should just give wifi internet access away though, it's not terribly costly. Even the tiny town of Pescadero, CA has free high-speed wifi internet provided by San Mateo county.
- robotrout 9y ago
  Free things are abused. Non-homeless people will swamp a free network with video streaming. Bandwidth limiting would need implemented, which make make the network useless for VoIP or streaming. But sure, if it's possible, I would love me some free internet!
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    > Non-homeless people will swamp a free network with video streaming. Block YouTube, Vimeo, Instagram and Reddit's video service, plus Facebook. Magically, 90% of the issues there resolve themselves very quickly. > Bandwidth limiting would need implemented, which make make the network useless for VoIP or streaming. Not necessarily. You could implement a fast-lane that only allowed access to a few sites, like Google Voice, to allow VoIP for those who really needed it. * * * The biggest concern with this would be the privacy implications it could have. Especially considering that the homeless are less likely to be in-the-know with infosec, it seems like an incredibly quick way to have a lot of personal information stolen quite quickly.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      YouTube is a vital source of information on so many things; outright blocking it seems cruel. I think it'd be preferable to find some way of having per-person accounts with limits.
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    I assume the capacity would be such that at least the expected number of people would be able to use the internet normally as if it were no different to something they were paying for. This isn't homeless-only free wifi, this is everyone-in-range free wifi. How is this any different from any other deployment of wireless service to a given population? It's just the taxpayers pay the bill. Or are you suggesting that some users are going to deploy multiple clients to hoard the bandwidth? That seems like a solvable problem.
lph 9y ago
What purpose does cryptocurrency serve in this scenario that ordinary payment methods could not?
- travisjungroth 9y ago
  Guaranteed payment, low transaction cost and available to all. A homeless person often can’t get a credit/debit card, so cryptocurrency would be great for digital payment.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    Except Bitcoin is anything but low transaction fee
    - travisjungroth 9y ago
      I agree, Bitcoin fees are too high for this use case. There are other assets with faster/cheaper transactions. I just wanted honestly answer the comment about why cryptocurrency is better in this case (even if it’s not all cryptocurrency). I could also say why it’s worse: price instability (that $100 you had to your name is now $70), no way to force a refund, not widely used, and you have to manage keys. I’m sure there are more.
- ObeyTheGuts 9y ago
  as homeless icant have bank account, i do can use bitcoin

DoreenMichele 9y ago

would not need to be an impediment to making a living It is still an impediment, but it is not a showstopper. If you start making enough money, you stop identifying as homeless. You either get back into housing or you start identifying as a digital nomad, which is simply a lifestyle choice. Even digital nomads talk about how that lifestyle can make it difficult to sit down and concentrate on your work. Being technically able to work from anywhere doesn't change the fact that lack of a dedicated work space (and routine, etc) tends to hamper productivity. Some digital nomads settle in someplace for a few weeks or months at a time in order to carve out blocks of productive time. Unlike well heeled digital nomads who can spend fair sums at cafes, homeless people tend to not be welcome to hang out on their laptop or tablet for hours at a time. They aren't presentable enough and they aren't spending enough money. They tend to get thrown out and told to not come back if they try to hang too long at a commercial establishment.

newnewpdro 9y ago

Pre-pay smartphones don't require a credit card, and have all the trappings of a normal smartphone's contract service. Urban areas should just give wifi internet access away though, it's not terribly costly. Even the tiny town of Pescadero, CA has free high-speed wifi internet provided by San Mateo county.

robotrout 9y ago
Free things are abused. Non-homeless people will swamp a free network with video streaming. Bandwidth limiting would need implemented, which make make the network useless for VoIP or streaming. But sure, if it's possible, I would love me some free internet!
- Mononokay 9y ago
  > Non-homeless people will swamp a free network with video streaming. Block YouTube, Vimeo, Instagram and Reddit's video service, plus Facebook. Magically, 90% of the issues there resolve themselves very quickly. > Bandwidth limiting would need implemented, which make make the network useless for VoIP or streaming. Not necessarily. You could implement a fast-lane that only allowed access to a few sites, like Google Voice, to allow VoIP for those who really needed it. * * * The biggest concern with this would be the privacy implications it could have. Especially considering that the homeless are less likely to be in-the-know with infosec, it seems like an incredibly quick way to have a lot of personal information stolen quite quickly.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    YouTube is a vital source of information on so many things; outright blocking it seems cruel. I think it'd be preferable to find some way of having per-person accounts with limits.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  I assume the capacity would be such that at least the expected number of people would be able to use the internet normally as if it were no different to something they were paying for. This isn't homeless-only free wifi, this is everyone-in-range free wifi. How is this any different from any other deployment of wireless service to a given population? It's just the taxpayers pay the bill. Or are you suggesting that some users are going to deploy multiple clients to hoard the bandwidth? That seems like a solvable problem.

lph 9y ago

What purpose does cryptocurrency serve in this scenario that ordinary payment methods could not?

travisjungroth 9y ago
Guaranteed payment, low transaction cost and available to all. A homeless person often can’t get a credit/debit card, so cryptocurrency would be great for digital payment.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  Except Bitcoin is anything but low transaction fee
  - travisjungroth 9y ago
    I agree, Bitcoin fees are too high for this use case. There are other assets with faster/cheaper transactions. I just wanted honestly answer the comment about why cryptocurrency is better in this case (even if it’s not all cryptocurrency). I could also say why it’s worse: price instability (that $100 you had to your name is now $70), no way to force a refund, not widely used, and you have to manage keys. I’m sure there are more.
ObeyTheGuts 9y ago
as homeless icant have bank account, i do can use bitcoin