2/ Localized actuation: Edge nodes must have local actuation (eg: a solenoid toggling off/on). Sensing necessary but not sufficient.
Conversation
Replying to
3/ Open peering: System must be open and IP based: anyone can add an edge node/client (Pachube Geiger counters, Uber fail the test)
1
Replying to
4/ Latency: There must be a meaningful latency constraint at least comparable to an MMO for a node to participate usefully in the system.
1
Replying to
5/ Consumer interface: You can go to a site/open an app and do something that no non-LOLCATS system can.
1
Replying to
6/ Affordability: Adding an edge node must be highly affordable to a median adult in the developed world (eg. <$200 Arduino based)
1
Replying to
7/ Teaming: It must be possible to do distributed control over networks using teams of >=2. Eg. 2-drone formation flight negotiated online
1
Replying to
8/ Single-point of failure resistance. This probably means peering (though not necessarily open) at server layer as well.
1
Replying to
9/ Looking at the examples I know of, there has not yet been a full LOLCATS system built. Most common shortcomings are actuation and teaming
1
1
Replying to
10/ There are also four nice to have features, which take you into LOLCATS++ territory. These are...
1
Replying to
11/ a) Byzantine fault tolerance. b) Blockchain microeconomy
c) Localized mobile ad-hoc networking, d) heterogeneity of nodes (2+ types)
1
1
Replying to
12/ I'll bet that the first LOLCATS system will be live in <5 years, and the first LOLCATS++ system in <10 years.
Replying to
Seems to me people have been dreaming of LOLCATS systems avant la acronym for years with basically zero progress towards them.
2
Replying to
Disagree. I think we've been inching forward steadily towards a full LOLCATS system for years, at about 5-10% per year.
1
Show replies
Replying to
For example, much of the Civic Wifi movement back in ~2004 spoke in these terms.

