I also think some money could be made on a "gamer VPN" that identifies voice and game traffic, and sends it redundantly (like 3 or 4 times) over the VPN tunnel.
Effectively cuts your bandwidth by 66-75% (for those applications), but is far more resilient to packet loss, hopefully without affecting latency.
@cereal The point would be, for those packets, the VPN link transmits the related tunneled traffic three times. Alternately, use three VPN links with unique endpoints, which has other advantages.
For the application and the server, they'd only see the normal traffic. The redundancy is at the VPN level, and the problems it creates (because as @ignaloidas pointed out, we're putting more traffic on something crowded or flaky in the first place) are on networks between the user and the VPN aggregator.
@r000t Need to consider the fact that at higher usage the packet loss chance gets bigger.
@ignaloidas yeahhhhhhhhhhh I hate that "tragedy of the commons" sort of solution to the problem, but the high-bandwidth bulk-tier shit it's competing with (Netflix) already has mechanisms to deal w/ it.
@r000t What I meant is that on shitty connections, this might actually make it worse, e.g. if you have a 200 kbps pipe and sending 100 kbps drops 10%, trying to punch redundant 300 kbps might result in 90% packet drop, worsening the situation massively.
@ignaloidas Assumed use case is a home environment with run-of-the-mill residential internet that's just poorly managed, or with a flaky (but otherwise "high bandwidth") last-mile link
@jeff I keep trying to understand lokinet and I keep failing miserably, and I feel like it's something I'd have many uses for if I just got the point of it.
A silly domain for test deploys, now has a mastodon instance. A place for memes as shitty as the name. Zero bullshit tolerated.