 
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state | RIAA Will there be some degree of anonymity implemented in it? That's the real crux in terms of P2P programs
--
Why bother? | |
|  | 
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Re: RIAA Probably not, but the good thing is, they won't be able to take a file down merely by nuking the tracker, because hey presto, everyone is a tracker.
All you have to do is wait for a friend somewhere who is out of xxAA's reach put it in an ftp or something for you to grab.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| | 
TexasGuy
49 States And Texas
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX
| P2P will never has enough anonymity unless it is a paid service. There will be no company that will proxy themselves for free all the crazy bandwidth from P2P. I read somewhere that P2P is almost 40% peaks in daytime of total internet traffic. It is just too $$$.
--
-- Who drank has died, who drinks will die; is he immortal who is sober? --
-- I started out with nothing, I still have most of it -- | |
| | | 
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| Re: RIAA said by TexasGuy  :I read somewhere that P2P is almost 40% peaks in daytime of total internet traffic. It is just too $$$. True, the other 60% is Spam and DDOS. 
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. | |
| | | | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: RIAA its 90 percent spam 10 percent peer2peer
said by TexasGuy :
I read somewhere that P2P is almost 40% peaks in daytime of total internet traffic. It is just too $$$.
True, the other 60% is Spam and DDOS.
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. | |
| | | prdotorg
join:2002-06-06
Waldorf, MD
4 edits | I understand your points, but it's not totally true. This - »pdos.lcs.mit.edu/tarzan - is a project in the works, and needs to be advanced a lot, but there is a p2p system already in place that offers anonymity.
Winny (WinNY), the japanese p2p client offers such that, of course it's geared towards japanese users. Also sadly the programmer of the program (a prof. at a Toyko univ.) is having a lot of legal problems at the moment. Also, there have been arrests for posting material on the Winny system, but the program was not cracked, the numerous bbs that exist out there, where people can post when they are sharing new files, was compromised and they were able to capture IPs that way. For more info, please visit »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny . | |
| |
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state
1 edit | What if it enabled others with high-speed connections to be proxy's? Just a stab in the dark.
Like the charachteristic of bittorrent, what if it sent the pieces to diffirent proxys (people running Exeem) before it reached the actual downloader? It might be a little slower, but there could be an option to toggle it on or off. | |
| | | | | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: RIAA said by DrewCapu :bit torrent was never meant to have any annonymity. If you want annonymity, just swap external hard drives with your closest friends  Thats kind of silly, can you be more practical about it? To say that has no logical sense, for amusement and to entertain others? | |
| | | | 
erc
@rr.com | Re: RIAA Uhm, that's what I do. *shrug*
Quit thinking like such a leach. | |
|
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Spread the love LOL, make everyone a tracker. Hahah. That's a good one. Get ready to hear xxAA's cries of stop thief! No thank you, we've heard that song before.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Re: Spread the love ...and that song carries a copyright. So if you reproduce it, you owe!  | |
| 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
1 edit | Entertainment industry endorsing illegal practices It speaks volumes about the entertainment industry that they've stooped so low to actually illegally DDOS somebody to protect their bloody royalties.
As far as I'm concerned, they're not only hypocritical, they're endorsing illegal practices. | |
| | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Re: Entertainment industry indorsing illegal pract And of course, they'll publicly deny it. But private data
has a way of making itself public - look what happened with
Diebold's electronic voting machines. If something like
this ever got out that the content cartels were using less
than legal means (such as virii, trojans and DDoS attacks)
to stop filesharing, it would probably be the final nail
in their coffin. They would lose whatever remaining
credibility they had as a legitimate organization with
most of the public: everyone would see them as the bad guys.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. | |
| | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs: | Re: Entertainment industry indorsing illegal pract Time will tell how they managed to bring all these distribution centers offline.
Two wrongs don't make a right. | |
| 
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA | Its about time I've been waiting for longest for decentralized P2P I'm glad suprnova is taking the first steps . | |
| B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| So How's It Different From Gnutella? The well-written article specifically cites Gnutella as one of the first successful decentralized P2P efforts.
Of course, ALL the other P2P networks besides BitTorrent are ALREADY quite decentralized.
What does the "new" decentralized BitTorrent bring to the party?
I thought the whole point of a BitTorrent tracker WAS that it was an effective central tracking point. As Bram Cohen said from the beginning, BitTorrent was intended for LEGITIMATE file distribution, not mass copyright infringement. It's one of those very odd accidents that it's been embraced by file traders. (Why? Is it because it's just so successful at enforcing sharing and punishing leeches, leading to high throughput?)
I don't see exactly why a decentralized BitTorrent would be significantly better than the already-decentralized alternatives.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? BitTorrent has long been lauded for its speed. A decentralized version could potentially be just as fast, without the "vulnerable" tracker.
Then again, there is precedent protecting trackers. Google anyone? Trackers are little different from search engines.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Licenses should be per user, Ditch Norton! Get F-Prot! | |
| | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? said by sivran :BitTorrent has long been lauded for its speed. A decentralized version could potentially be just as fast, without the "vulnerable" tracker. No, I don't think it could! My point above was that, I think, BitTorrent's speed is DIRECTLY attributable to the success it has in enforcing sharing AND to the single tracker model, allowing many, many people easy access to different bits of a file. (This ensures multiple uploaders and sufficient, decentralized bandwidth.)
Decentralizing that would seem, to me, to cut off most of the reason that BitTorrent currently works so well (many people coming to a single source for finding each other and different sections of a file, all of whom are effectively prevented from leeching).
Of course, it would be nice to be wrong. Let's see!
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? said by B :My point above was that, I think, BitTorrent's speed is DIRECTLY attributable to the success it has in enforcing sharing AND to the single tracker model, allowing many, many people easy access to different bits of a file. (This ensures multiple uploaders and sufficient, decentralized bandwidth.) I tend to agree. Do you want anonymous file-sharing? Or do you want fast and efficient file-sharing? Because I believe that network graph theory would tend to suggest that the most direct pathways through the network will be the fastest, but also the least anonymous (from a network-connection-identity POV - there are other steps that you can take, in terms of creating real-world anonymity and "disconnection" from your online information).
said by B :Decentralizing that would seem, to me, to cut off most of the reason that BitTorrent currently works so well (many people coming to a single source for finding each other and different sections of a file, all of whom are effectively prevented from leeching). I totally agree. It is designed to be basically centralized, like a web site, but every leaf-node that attaches to that "root" of the tree (aka "Seed", I guess, in BT-terminology), creates further branches, that each themselves offer upload bandwidth off of, thus the more people downloading, the more uploading too!
It works kind of like how many popular web sites subscribe to "edge node content caching server networks", like Akamai, so that when you access www.microsoft.com, you're actually hitting XYZ.akami.com, except that BT is all handled client-side, and doesn't need to have an explicit server-side support or fancy geo-DNS or round-robin DNS mappings.
I'm a bit curious in terms of what direction Intel and PlanetLab have been doing, in terms of adding content-caching nodes directly into the core fabric of the network itself - that's a model that I do believe will be the most efficient overall, but it will take getting content producers to accept a non-centralized distribution/server model before it could ever take off in the real world.
I see it as a model (for commercial sites/information) akin to television programming production and distribution. Rather than the television producers including the ads directly, they "wholesale" that content to redistribution server nodes (local to various ISP networks), and then they add "local ads" to the content, ala local television/cable programming affiliates, and pass on a portion of that revensue "upstream" to the content producers. Likewise, for non-ad-supported content, (almost like PPV cable programming) the customer would make micropayments to their ISP for that content, and a portion would be funneled upstream to the content producers.
Interesting how well BT might also map to a similar model like that, if micropayement or dynamic ad-insertion technology were added. The problem is that such a dynamically-forming network topology does best with larger files (not smaller files such as are served as part of web content), because of the requirement to amortize the costs of node connection/disconnection over the actual file-transfer times. | |
| | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? Well said, Larry.
There's some new discussion over at »yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=···7&tid=17 where some people seem to be rationalizing that trackers aren't really liable as central distribution points. I think they're dreaming.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | | | |
niblick
@range81-152.btcentra
| Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? an interesting fact i was told when in a lecture on copyright was that under law (at least uk law, not sure about us) it is NOT illegal to share a copyrighted piece of material, as you are not directly giving the material to the leech (they are taking it from you). it is, as we all know, illegal to own copyrighted material without copyright.
by that model, a tracker would not be breaking the law.
i personally can't understand how people are ever procecuted for copyright infringement. copyright law is unbelievably ambiguous. | |
| | | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella?
Funny you should resurrect this thread right after major tracker pointers including Suprnova were just shut down!
But your statement sounds backwards -- "they are taking it from you" when you distribute copyrighted material? So that means every person selling copies of new Hollywood releases on the street corner is completely innocent? It's the people buying who are the only criminals?
And I never heard it was "illegal to own copyrighted material without copyright". In fact, I really doubt it is. (And I'm no lawyer.) It would kind of make things like, you know, BOOKS, illegal to possess.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | | | | | |
UK Bod
@wintermute-ltd.com | Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? The difference is, your street corner seller is selling for money - that's the illegal act, not the providing of copyright goods, but the providing copyright goods *for sale* | |
| | |
Watada
| bt has it's speed because the main(original client) has not upload limiting. This new exeem client is guaranteed to have upload limiting. But this is not the main reason, it is also because everyone knows everyone that has the file so there is no searching, if this could be implimented(not possible to be complete but most) into the decentralized version it might just be as fast | |
| | batmanst
join:2003-12-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| Because it allows you to hide behind a brick wall or remain anonymous? Why stand in the middle of the road and get run over for nothing?
or good for nothing. You wouldn't take off your clothes in public would ya? You can do it in your own privacy in your restroom but if they caught you do this, it's illegal. That's what I call snooping in your little bedroom to catch you in the act. The law is crazy my friend, it doesn't respect our privacy, it doesn't care what you think, it has no feelings. It makes money and punishes people at the same time, is not right. Plundering our wealth first then our property as well to put us on the street to crawl like the rest of the homeless.
 | |
| MizTEcK
join:2003-08-01
North York, ON | nice! w00t w00t!! | |
| |
fraorlando
@chello.at
| So what? In fact gnutella 2 is dezentralized and multisourced....it does exactly the same as bt already+more,...also cant see where the big difference would be with exeem...
Also, bt is slow if all the people are only leeching, in my experience only private trackers with a ratio system getting the speeds which makes it interesting. If it was only for suprnova, where I only get around 20-30 kb/s (witha a 1024/256 cable) i'd drop it, so i wonder what exeem would be like.... | |
| |
Xymor
@com.b | Exeem doomed? True
ppl using G2 clients with 10 seeds and 90 peers sharing a file, can achieve the same speed as a torrent with the same numbers.
I think Exeem whould just kill the practicity/efficiency of the current torrent model. | |
| |
nestor slo
@siol.net
| Re: Exeem doomed? some of you talk stupid things
I'm one of the many beta testers and the program is very cool, the GUI will be the best I ever seen...
Speed is cool, and if you will not be only leechers (because of them P2P networks fall down) this program will be really awsome
I almost wait to get a new update | |
| | |
abla
@telenet.be
| Re: Exeem doomed? quote:
some of you talk stupid things
I argree with that, also there is an essential diffrence between BT and G2 in the way peers are selected to upload to, with BT peers are no just put in a queue waiting for their turn, there are some advanced mechanisms behind it to maximize performance, see whitepapers on bittorrent site for more info.
As long as no decent statistical analysis has been made it is waste of time to discuss about performance issues, cause u CAN NOT know, especially not based on ur own observations. An other way is to give some kind of proof why one algoritm performs better than the other, so if u cant do either of these 2 dont bother giving ur futile opinions . | |
|
Brandonburry Park
@eastlink.ca
| ... I believe, and i may be wrong here, that a decentralised BT may work just as well as the current version without the worry of leeching affecting overall speed.
I know of at least two Gnutella based P2P sharing programs with the option to upload files currently being downloaded ( which, as i understand it, and again i may be wrong, is how BT works ) without having to have the entire file on a local drive.
So, if a decentralised BT had said 'option' hardwired into the source... wouldn't it prevent leeching while still allowing the increased speed? | |
|
Donny1
@comcast.net
| hopfully I can clear things up I dont think some of you see why this is going to work and why it is different from gnutella
they are using bit torrent technology here along with kazaa/gnutella technology together..
kazaa does not make you upload at all to download, so you get many many leechers.
bittorrent makes you upload, if you dont upload you cant download, and the faster you upload the faster you can download. so all the people downloading these files will be uploading the files, the only difference is everyone is a tracker now, so no one has to host the trackers which is what suprnova couldnt keep up. so basically they are just getting rid of the tracker bandwidth and putting it on the users of exeem.
and I am not a beta tester but from what I am seeing it looks like exeem will work a little like kazaa in the respect that.. well say on bittorrent someone is hosting a file just say its linux.. so people start downloading it from that guy and eventually some people finish the download and u have a few people seeding the file.. somewhere else someone can be hosting the same exact file on a different tracker and other people would be doing the same thing.. if I am reading about exeem correctly. When you search the files will group together no matter who starts to host is, so say joe smoe starts to host it somewhere and people start downloading it.. then billy smoe starts hosting his copy.. then I go to download it, I will be downloading from both people, not just a single tracker like before.
so I think this will work great, I have actually wondered why they never did this before and I hope it works as well as it sounds. I hope this cleared things up for some people, and I hope that everything I said was right. | |
| |
Mylon
@rr.com
| Re: hopfully I can clear things up Exeem's biggest hurdle (though it may already be overcome, for all I know) is verified content publication. Suprnova was great because when you downloaded a file you knew it was what it said it was. A web site, such as Suprnova.org or Sharereactor.com can provide links to verified content, which is what makes P2p usable. Sure, you can search within Emule for a certain file but you're likely to see bad versions, fakes, several versions of the same file (with more than one being valid) and generally a lot of crap that's has nothing to do with what you want. When you visit a well maintained web site and you do a search, you get a very small number of results with a "standardized" version that makes for a larger peer sharing group.
Having verified content by its nature requires some kind of centralization. At the very least a moderation group is needed, and the simplest solution is distributing this verification information through a centralized service, such as a web site. The best I can imagine that would make Exeem allow decentralized, verified content would be "moderation groups" managed by private/public cryptographic keys.
The group moderator maintains a list of approved moderators that submit/approve of content. This list is nothing more than a list of other users with their public key information plus hash information to find the sub-moderator list file, which in turn themselves may be group moderators underneath this higher moderators. It's possible to give (via the group moderator's list) to give sub-moderators authority to have sub-moderators of their own based on trustworthiness.
Each of these moderators has a list of content they have "published" and of possible submoderators. The effect is once a person grabs this group admin file (which must be found via external methods, much like someone must discover a web site address by word of mouth), the admin file then queues to download moderator and sub-moderator lists. The program parses these lists to create a database of verified files, sorted by whatever criterea deemed appropriate by the moderators. As long as a moderator is considered trustworthy, they stay on the admin's list and their files are published automatically. If a moderator begins to publish fake files, they can be removed from the admin's list (and perhaps their non-fake files and their responsibility given to another moderator) to remove the corruption. This method can be applied to any P2P network, though it would greatly help to have support by the P2P client or at the very least a third party program to manage the database of verified files and check for the authenticity based on the cryptographic keys provided.
The net effect of this is that something such as Suprnova.org can be now condensed in its entirety to something as tiny as 100 bytes or so, such as an ed2k link that need only be clicked once. The public keys stored inside the original file allows the individual user to search for files generated by the same admin with a later timestamp. This updated admin file isn't even too necessary, as the moderator lists contain the actual files. As long as the moderators stay trustworthy, the user only needs to search for files generated by these moderators to update their database. | |
| | | slacker22
join:2004-12-23
| Re: hopfully I can clear things up Exactly Mylon, That is the major hurdle. It will be just as fast as bittorrent. The reason why bittorrent is so much faster then other p2p's is because of its ability to prioritize uploading and downloading. When you are on a torrent you become a part of a group that only participates in that torrent.. You don't have like a share directory where any peer can just grab pieces of your files... Everybody on the torrent is focusing directly on the torrent itself. That's why its so fast. Decentralizing the tracker is only going to change the way the clients are told what and where to download the info... The main concept will be the same.
But as Mylon pointed out, content verification becomes an issue.. And the idea that you have just pointed out with the moderators is a great idea.. However.. That sort of centralizes it a tiny bit.
And last point.. The major issue i have with exeem is its just going to be a way for suprnova peeps to make money. They will likely place banner ads on it and keep the source closed. Im not down with that. We need an open source decentralized bit torrent so that it can evolve and different clients can be made.
exeem = Peace of shit. It wont be the same as bit-torrent at all. Bit-torrent = anti-kazaa mentality. I will not use some crappy ass program that all these lamers will end up using spreading crappy content with banner ad's and all kinds of shit. That's for the main stream. Bit-torrent is not main stream. | |
| | | |
mjmnq6
@69.27.x.x
| a cool research study of BT and Suprnova here is a link to a cool academic study of BT and Suprnova.
the incredible efficiency of the team at Suprnova to maintain the integrity of files was part of what made it exceptional. is was almost impossible to get a fake file past the moderators.
»www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/18···nalysis/ | |
| | |
shaqer
@mindspring.com
| I agree. There still has to be some way to verify that you're getting a valid file, otherwise, this all turns into another kazaa/edonkey/etc... network (which is all together futile). Unless I'm just not understanding correctly how this works, It is my opinion that this will turn into another kazaa with high unreliability (never knowing if you're going to get a file or not due to the lack of tracker supervision/rules). Those "associations" out there will continue to pursue more and more people for data that they are sharing making it virtually impossible to share confidently no matter what the file is. But if they can come up with a way to verify the contents of a particular file before downloading it, that would be cool...kind of like nforce.nl but with additional file information. | |
| |
mjmnq6
@69.27.x.x | actually, BT doesn't punish leachers and reward seeders. that is the biggest problem with BT. if i choke out my uploading by capping it at 3kb/s, then my download speed dramatically increase - exactly the opposite of what you are saying. | |
| | | | |
|
|
