In 2019, Rodolfo Novak sent a Bitcoin transaction from Toronto to Michigan without internet or satellite. He used a ham radio, the 40-meter band, and the ionosphere as his relay. Nick Szabo called it “Bitcoin sent over national border without internet or satellite, just nature’s ionosphere.” The transaction was tiny, the setup finicky, and the […] The post Bitcoin doesn’t even need the internet to stay alive – but banks and credit cards do appeared first on CryptoSlate.In 2019, Rodolfo Novak sent a Bitcoin transaction from Toronto to Michigan without internet or satellite. He used a ham radio, the 40-meter band, and the ionosphere as his relay. Nick Szabo called it “Bitcoin sent over national border without internet or satellite, just nature’s ionosphere.” The transaction was tiny, the setup finicky, and the […] The post Bitcoin doesn’t even need the internet to stay alive – but banks and credit cards do appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin doesn’t even need the internet to stay alive – but banks and credit cards do

In 2019, Rodolfo Novak sent a Bitcoin transaction from Toronto to Michigan without internet or satellite. He used a ham radio, the 40-meter band, and the ionosphere as his relay.

Nick Szabo called it “Bitcoin sent over national border without internet or satellite, just nature’s ionosphere.” The transaction was tiny, the setup finicky, and the use case borderline absurd.

Yet, it proved something: the protocol doesn’t care what carries its packets.

That experiment sits at one end of a decade-long stress test the Bitcoin community runs quietly in the background, a distributed R&D program testing whether the network can function when the usual infrastructure fails.

Satellites broadcast blocks to dishes across continents. Mesh radios relay transactions across neighborhoods without the need for ISPs. Tor routes traffic around censors. Ham operators tap out hexadecimal over shortwave.

These aren’t production systems. They’re fire drills for scenarios most payment networks treat as edge cases.

The question driving it all: if the internet fragments, how fast can Bitcoin come back online?

Satellites give Bitcoin an independent clock

Blockstream Satellite broadcasts the full Bitcoin blockchain 24/7 via four geostationary satellites covering most populated regions.

A node with an inexpensive dish and a Ku-band receiver can sync blocks and stay in consensus even if local ISPs go dark.

The system is one-way and low-bandwidth, but it solves a specific problem: during regional blackouts or censorship, nodes need an independent source of truth for the ledger state.

The satellite API extends this further. Anyone can uplink arbitrary data, including signed transactions, from ground stations for global broadcast. goTenna partnered with Blockstream to let users compose transactions on offline Android phones, relay them via local mesh, then hand them to a satellite uplink that broadcasts without touching the wider internet.

The bandwidth is terrible, but the independence is absolute.

This matters because satellites provide an “out-of-band” channel. When regular routing fails, nodes scattered across different continents can still receive the same chain tip from space, providing a shared reference point for rebuilding consensus once terrestrial links return.

Mesh and LoRa build Bitcoin backhaul at human scale

Mesh networks take a different approach: instead of broadcasting from orbit, they relay packets device-to-device across short hops until one node with internet access rebroadcasts to the broader network. TxTenna, built by goTenna, demonstrated this in 2019.

Users send signed transactions over a mesh network from offline phones, hopping node to node until reaching an exit point. Coin Center documented the architecture: each hop extends reach without requiring any participant to have direct internet access.

Long-range LoRa mesh pushes this concept further. Locha Mesh, started by Bitcoin Venezuela, builds radio nodes that form an IPv6 mesh over license-free bands.

The hardware, Turpial and Harpia devices, can carry messages, Bitcoin transactions, and even block sync over several kilometers without an internet connection.

Tests in disaster zones proved successful crypto transactions across multi-hop networks where cellular and fiber were both down.

Darkwire fragments raw Bitcoin transactions into small packets and relays them hop-by-hop over LoRa radios. Each node reaches roughly 10 kilometers of line of sight, turning a neighborhood of hobbyist radios into ad hoc Bitcoin infrastructure.

Urban range drops to a 3 to 5 kilometers range, but that’s enough to route around localized outages or censorship chokepoints.

Academic projects like LNMesh extended this logic to Lightning Network payments, demonstrating offline micropayments over local wireless mesh during power outages.

The volumes are small and the setups fragile, but they establish the principle: Bitcoin’s physical layer is fungible. As long as there exists a path between the nodes, the protocol functions.

Tor and ham radio fill the gaps

Tor represents the middle ground between the regular internet and exotic radio. Since Bitcoin Core 0.12, nodes automatically start a hidden service if a local Tor daemon is running, accepting connections via .onion addresses even when ISPs block known Bitcoin ports.

The Bitcoin Wiki and Jameson Lopp’s setup guides document dual-stack configurations in which nodes route traffic over both clearnet and Tor simultaneously, complicating efforts to censor Bitcoin traffic at the ISP level.

Experts warn against running nodes exclusively over Tor due to eclipse-attack risks, but using it as one routing option among several substantially raises the cost of blocking Bitcoin infrastructure.

Ham radio sits at the far end of the spectrum. Beyond Novak’s ionosphere experiment, operators have relayed Lightning payments via amateur radio frequencies.

These tests involve manually encoding transactions, transmitting them over HF bands using protocols like JS8Call, then decoding and rebroadcasting on the other side.

The throughput is laughable by modern standards, but the point isn’t efficiency. The point is demonstrating that Bitcoin can move across any medium capable of carrying small data packets, including ones that predate the internet by decades.

What a global partition actually looks like

Recent modeling explores what happens during a prolonged global internet outage.

One scenario splits the network into three regions, Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe-Africa, with roughly 45%, 35%, and 20% of hash rate, respectively.

Each partition’s miners continue producing blocks while adjusting the difficulty independently. Local exchanges build their own fee markets and order books on diverging chains.

Within each partition, Bitcoin continues working. Transactions confirmed, balances updated, local commerce proceeds, but only within that island. Cross-border trade freezes. When connectivity returns, nodes face multiple valid chains.

The consensus rule is deterministic: follow the chain with the most cumulative proof of work. Weaker partitions are reorganized, and some recent transactions are removed from global history.

If the outage lasts hours to a day and the hash distribution isn’t wildly skewed, the result is temporary chaos followed by convergence as bandwidth returns and blocks propagate.

Prolonged outages create the risk that social coordination will override protocol rules, exchanges, or that large miners will choose their preferred history. Still, even that remains visible and rule-bound in ways that traditional financial reconciliation is not.

Banks don’t have fire drills for this

Contrast that with what happens when payment infrastructure breaks. TARGET2’s 10-hour outage in October 2020 delayed SEPA files and forced central banks to manage liquidity and collateral manually.

Visa’s Europe-wide failure in June 2018 saw 2.4 million UK card transactions fail outright and ATMs run dry within hours after a single data center switch died.

The ECB’s TARGET system suffered another major outage in February 2025, prompting external audits after backup systems failed to activate.

IMF and BIS documentation on CBDC and RTGS resilience explicitly warns that large-scale power or network outages can simultaneously hit primary and backup data centers, and that centralized payment systems require complex business-continuity planning to avoid systemic disruption.

The architectural difference matters. Every Bitcoin node holds a full copy of the ledger and validation rules.

After any outage, as soon as it can communicate with other nodes, via satellite, Tor, mesh, or restored ISP, it simply asks: what’s the heaviest valid chain?

The protocol defines the resolution mechanism. No central operator reconciles competing databases.

Banks depend on a layered, centralized infrastructure comprising core banking ledgers, RTGS systems such as Fedwire and TARGET, card networks, ACH, and clearinghouses.

Recovery involves replaying queued transactions, reconciling mismatched snapshots, sometimes manually adjusting balances, then bringing hundreds of intermediaries back into sync.

Visa’s 2018 outage took hours to diagnose despite a full-time operations team. The ECB’s TARGET incidents required external reviews and multi-month remediation plans.

Bitcoin practices for worst-case scenarios

So, in a crisis, a plausible scenario emerges: a subset of miners and nodes stays synchronized via satellite and radio, maintaining an authoritative chain tip even as fiber and mobile networks fail.

As connectivity returns in patches, local nodes pull missing blocks and reorganize to that chain within minutes to hours.

Meanwhile, banks figure out which payment batches settled, reschedule missed ACH files, and wait for RTGS systems to complete end-of-day reconciliation before reopening fully.

This doesn’t mean Bitcoin “wins” instantly. Card rails and cash still matter for consumers. But as a global settlement layer, it might reach a consistent state faster than a patchwork of national payment systems, precisely because it’s been running continuous fire drills for world-scale failure modes.

The ham operators tapping out transactions over shortwave, the Venezuelan mesh nodes routing sats across blackout neighborhoods, the satellites broadcasting blocks to dishes pointed at the sky, and these aren’t production infrastructure.

They’re proof that when the usual pipes break, Bitcoin has a Plan B. And a Plan C. And a Plan D that involves the ionosphere.

The banking system still treats infrastructure failures as rare edge cases. Bitcoin is treating it as a design constraint.

The post Bitcoin doesn’t even need the internet to stay alive – but banks and credit cards do appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Market Opportunity
Hamster Logo
Hamster Price(HAM)
$0,0000000002046
$0,0000000002046$0,0000000002046
+1,58%
USD
Hamster (HAM) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security

Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security

BitcoinWorld Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security Ever wondered why withdrawing your staked Ethereum (ETH) isn’t an instant process? It’s a question that often sparks debate within the crypto community. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin recently stepped forward to defend the network’s approximately 45-day ETH unstaking period, asserting its crucial role in safeguarding the network’s integrity. This lengthy waiting time, while sometimes seen as an inconvenience, is a deliberate design choice with profound implications for security. Why is the ETH Unstaking Period a Vital Security Measure? Vitalik Buterin’s defense comes amidst comparisons to other networks, like Solana, which boast significantly shorter unstaking times. He drew a compelling parallel to military operations, explaining that an army cannot function effectively if its soldiers can simply abandon their posts at a moment’s notice. Similarly, a blockchain network requires a stable and committed validator set to maintain its security. The current ETH unstaking period isn’t merely an arbitrary delay. It acts as a critical buffer, providing the network with sufficient time to detect and respond to potential malicious activities. If validators could instantly exit, it would open doors for sophisticated attacks, jeopardizing the entire system. Currently, Ethereum boasts over one million active validators, collectively staking approximately 35.6 million ETH, representing about 30% of the total supply. This massive commitment underpins the network’s robust security model, and the unstaking period helps preserve this stability. Network Security: Ethereum’s Paramount Concern A shorter ETH unstaking period might seem appealing for liquidity, but it introduces significant risks. Imagine a scenario where a large number of validators, potentially colluding, could quickly withdraw their stake after committing a malicious act. Without a substantial delay, the network would have limited time to penalize them or mitigate the damage. This “exit queue” mechanism is designed to prevent sudden validator exodus, which could lead to: Reduced decentralization: A rapid drop in active validators could concentrate power among fewer participants. Increased vulnerability to attacks: A smaller, less stable validator set is easier to compromise. Network instability: Frequent and unpredictable changes in validator numbers can lead to performance issues and consensus failures. Therefore, the extended period is not a bug; it’s a feature. It’s a calculated trade-off between immediate liquidity for stakers and the foundational security of the entire Ethereum ecosystem. Ethereum vs. Solana: Different Approaches to Unstaking When discussing the ETH unstaking period, many point to networks like Solana, which offers a much quicker two-day unstaking process. While this might seem like an advantage for stakers seeking rapid access to their funds, it reflects fundamental differences in network architecture and security philosophies. Solana’s design prioritizes speed and immediate liquidity, often relying on different consensus mechanisms and validator economics to manage security risks. Ethereum, on the other hand, with its proof-of-stake evolution from proof-of-work, has adopted a more cautious approach to ensure its transition and long-term stability are uncompromised. Each network makes design choices based on its unique goals and threat models. Ethereum’s substantial value and its role as a foundational layer for countless dApps necessitate an extremely robust security posture, making the current unstaking duration a deliberate and necessary component. What Does the ETH Unstaking Period Mean for Stakers? For individuals and institutions staking ETH, understanding the ETH unstaking period is crucial for managing expectations and investment strategies. It means that while staking offers attractive rewards, it also comes with a commitment to the network’s long-term health. Here are key considerations for stakers: Liquidity Planning: Stakers should view their staked ETH as a longer-term commitment, not immediately liquid capital. Risk Management: The delay inherently reduces the ability to react quickly to market volatility with staked assets. Network Contribution: By participating, stakers contribute directly to the security and decentralization of Ethereum, reinforcing its value proposition. While the current waiting period may not be “optimal” in every sense, as Buterin acknowledged, simply shortening it without addressing the underlying security implications would be a dangerous gamble for the network’s reliability. In conclusion, Vitalik Buterin’s defense of the lengthy ETH unstaking period underscores a fundamental principle: network security cannot be compromised for the sake of convenience. It is a vital mechanism that protects Ethereum’s integrity, ensuring its stability and trustworthiness as a leading blockchain platform. This deliberate design choice, while requiring patience from stakers, ultimately fortifies the entire ecosystem against potential threats, paving the way for a more secure and reliable decentralized future. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is the main reason for Ethereum’s long unstaking period? A1: The primary reason is network security. A lengthy ETH unstaking period prevents malicious actors from quickly withdrawing their stake after an attack, giving the network time to detect and penalize them, thus maintaining stability and integrity. Q2: How long is the current ETH unstaking period? A2: The current ETH unstaking period is approximately 45 days. This duration can fluctuate based on network conditions and the number of validators in the exit queue. Q3: How does Ethereum’s unstaking period compare to other blockchains? A3: Ethereum’s unstaking period is notably longer than some other networks, such as Solana, which has a two-day period. This difference reflects varying network architectures and security priorities. Q4: Does the unstaking period affect ETH stakers? A4: Yes, it means stakers need to plan their liquidity carefully, as their staked ETH is not immediately accessible. It encourages a longer-term commitment to the network, aligning staker interests with Ethereum’s stability. Q5: Could the ETH unstaking period be shortened in the future? A5: While Vitalik Buterin acknowledged the current period might not be “optimal,” any significant shortening would likely require extensive research and network upgrades to ensure security isn’t compromised. For now, the focus remains on maintaining robust network defenses. Found this article insightful? Share it with your friends and fellow crypto enthusiasts on social media to spread awareness about the critical role of the ETH unstaking period in Ethereum’s security! To learn more about the latest Ethereum trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Ethereum’s institutional adoption. This post Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 15:30
Shiba Inu Price Forecast: Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

Shiba Inu Price Forecast: Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

While Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to build its ecosystem and PEPE holds onto its viral roots, a new contender, Layer […] The post Shiba Inu Price Forecast: Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale appeared first on Coindoo.
Share
Coindoo2025/09/18 01:13
The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board plans to study in 2026 whether crypto assets such as stablecoins can be classified as cash equivalents.

The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board plans to study in 2026 whether crypto assets such as stablecoins can be classified as cash equivalents.

PANews reported on December 31 that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) plans to study in 2026 whether certain crypto assets can be classified as cash
Share
PANews2025/12/31 16:50