44

presumably most of you were already hip to this, but just in case anyone was thinking this was a secure way to communicate without your phone: no it isn't

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago

lora used in a more security conscious

Meshcore and Reticulum do that, though they have a much smaller userbase than meshtastic.

[-] LargeAdultRedBook@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago

So why do people use Meshtastic over Meshcore and Reticulum?

[-] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

Meshtastic came first, there's a lot of existing Meshtastic networks, and Meshtastic does all of it's processing on the microprocessor (while Reticulum requires a separate computer in addition).

[-] trinicorn@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago

I'll have to look into reticulum. Can you not even have a dumb repeater node without a separate computer?

[-] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

you can't, because reticulum isn't LoRa focused, the reticulum node is the computer/phone. There's a bunch of other interfaces it can transmit over, like AX.25 (HAM radio, really only useful in EU), serial, Tor, I2P, the internet, and more.

also, since the processing is done on a more powerful chip, it means that it has significantly more efficient routing than Meshtastic. Meshtastic doesn't pick a path, it does flood routing where it has everyone retransmit, while reticulum only transmits as much as it needs to.

(well, you could have a dumb LoRa repeater, but that wouldn't really reticulum, even if it could extend the range of reticulum broadcasts)

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
44 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23914 readers
189 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS