[aprssig] Smart beaconing and the tragedy of the commons

[Robert Bruninga]

> Bob, I definitely want to know where the problems 
> with the algorithm as written are - not the 
> thresholds themselves, but the actual  
> algorithm.

I say again.  There is nothing wrong with the smart beaconing
algorithms...

Maybe you are missunderstanding me.

My issue from the beginning of this thread is "what algorithm do
we apply to the "settings" so that users don't make wrong,
abusive, or incoorect settings that harm the network.  In this
case, the "algorithm" I am talking aboout is the algorithm that
CHECKS the user settings against some commonly agreed limits to
prevent the user from making bad choices...

With all the smart beaconing code out there, there are a lot of
"smart beaconing algorithms". That has never been the issue.

The ISSUE is that there must be a protection algorithm to try to
minimize improper settings.  And this is not an easy thing to
do.  In my opinion, when a user makes his settings, then an
algorithm should kick in and analyze his settings and tell him
the probable impact of his settings.  As you are well aware,
this is totally dependent on what he is getting ready to do...

Settings for an event are usually very wrong for daily use.
Settings for daily use, are wrong for an event.  But in my
opinion, these are the two example extremes.  And so it should
be easy to see if the individual is setting up for "frequent low
speed ops with high rate corner pegging and then warn the user
on every setup, that he is in this mode and it should not be
used for routine operations.  Etc...  That is all I am asking.
What are the bounds we should place on these settings to
minimize errors?

Hence it is not an easy task...

Bob