> Does anybody know how good routing in this Project protected from malicious actors, or simply badly configured nodes?

Reticulum requires you to manually define your uplinks, including remote servers. If this remote server is blackholing your traffic, you are SOL.

If you define multiple remote servers, then you may be in luck iff your destination is advertising its route on a path (chain of servers) that has no such hostile nodes.

So, looks like no «Fully self-configuring multi-hop routing over heterogeneous carriers».

> I've never seen a bigger network with Reticulum in the wild.

Bigger than.. what?

> One of the main reasons of the communities not jumping onto the ship was that it's mostly a one-man-pr...

Reticulum does not support group chats. Which is a far more realistic explanation than suggesting the average user cares what the commit messages are.

For starters, Reticulum can communicate over a Yggdrasil network natively, but no one has yet implemented a Yggdrasil link over Reticulum as far as I am aware.

A Yggdrasil link is an IP tunnel. Reticulum has its own network protocol instead of IP because IP would not work well over slow and low-bandwidth connections. I think tunneling IP through Reticulum would cause only headaches.

A few years back, I ran Yggdrasil (poorly) over LoRa using a then-available experimental Meshtastic IP tunnel. Reticulum supports text-only websites (in the NomadNet software), and I have tested how these load over LoRa links. Loading time on a single hop (lab conditions) isn't half bad, honestly. My point in telling you this is that much of the mesh networking space is proof of concepts and poor executions, which often must happen first before elegant solutions to real problems can form.

My 2¢ on why Meshtastic is so popular (despite its many flaws) is because the original developer decided to implement a solution for a real use case.

You can find that here in the Layer 2 section: https://meshtastic.org/docs/overview/mesh-algo/

In short, all messages are sent within windows, which include waiting periods within which the broadcasting node listens for any other node to rebroadcast the same message. Upon seeing the message be rebroadcast, it stops attempting to send.

Thanks!

Have tried this out, and yes actually using it in any capacity risks an account ban with no recourse. Easy come, easy go. (I was running an IPFS node, which at the time was CPU and bandwidth expensive)

> It’s just a renderer that calls home with hardcoded references to Google’s services.

And unless you believe in ghosts putting the calls home back when you aren't looking, that isn't a problem for Brave [1].

[1]: https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traff...