Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BitTorrent Client Offers P2P Without Central Tracking

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the nodist-colony dept.

Software 218

Shiwei writes "While BitTorrent is the most popular P2P protocol, it still relies on several centralized points for users to find the files they are looking. There have been several attempts at making BitTorrent more decentralized, and the latest Tribler 5.3 client is the first to offer the BitTorrent experience without requiring central trackers or search engines. Tribler offers some very interesting technologies; the latest version enables users to search and download files from inside the client. Plenty of other clients offer search features, including the ever-popular Torrent, but Tribler's results come from other peers rather than from a dedicated search engine. Users can search and download content without a server ever getting involved; everything is done among peers, without the need of a BitTorrent tracker or search indexer."

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What (4, Informative)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510826)

Slashdot UTF fail. muTorrent, or utorrent, not Torrent.

Re:What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510862)

Or kTorrent

Re:What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511154)

Or uTorrent (for those who did the smart thing and did not read TFA.)

"Tribler offers some very interesting technologies; the latest version enables users to search and download files from inside the client."

Yes. BitTorrent software is very interesting technologies. However, I don't see how this is news. They even do go into further detail, still no magic new tech just a reference to "peer exchange (PXE)" and "distributed hash tables (DHT)"....

Sure wish uTorrent had some PXE's and DHT's. It sounds like a good idea. Oh.. wait.

Re:What (1)

blackdew (1161277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511832)

The "news" seems to be the p2p search protocol, which isn't really THAT new of an idea, and isn't too useful until it's supported by all the major clients and they actually manage to be compatible with each other, which given their track record will happen in a century or so...

Re:What (1)

GonzoPhysicist (1231558) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511380)

I always figured it was an SI prefix, e.i. 'micro-Torrent'.

Re:What (1, Funny)

pckl300 (1525891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511488)

It is, but nobody wants to look up the symbol every time they type it.

Re:What (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511434)

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Generic Cialis [genericsmed.com] , I hope you enjoy. The address is http://onlinehealthtip.blogspot.com/. A hug.

Re:What (4, Funny)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511614)

"A hug."

Hilarious, heart-warming and creepy, all-in-one.

Re:What (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511960)

Is this a genuine spam, or just somebody's twisted sense of humor?

Re:What (4, Funny)

asvravi (1236558) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511486)

He is talking about a million uTorrent.

Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510830)

So Essentially... bit torrent trackers are turning into Kazaa/Limewire type of software... We are going backwards.

Re:Back in Time. (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510854)

Don't worry, nobody will care this time either.

People keep trying to do this. At first we had P2P clients with integrated searching. None of them ever got all that popular. Then BitTorrent is launched, and it didn't have any searching, and relied on the much more familiar and comfortable web for that. It became a huge hit. What do these people do? They think, "Wow! BitTorrent is pretty great! But wouldn't it be even better if it had search?"

Predictably, though, they fail completely, every time.

Re:Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510970)

So, decentralization = bad?
Or, search at your fingertips = bad?

I think your comment has failed.

Re:Back in Time. (4, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511200)

So you are saying that Napster never got very popular?

The reason that Bitorrent became popular was because it was a faster protocol, and thus worked better for large files like videos and games. It had nothing to do with people being turned off by integrated search.

Re:Back in Time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511338)

Agreed. If this "step backwards" allows us to relive the glory days of Napster, I'm all over it. More importantly, though, decentralized services are nearly impossible for governments to shut down. Which, in our current political environment, sounds like a great idea.

Re:Back in Time. (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511512)

Tribbler is also Open Source so the government cant shut it down (like they did to other p2p programs in the past that were not open source like kazza)

Re:Back in Time. (2)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511752)

"Tribbler is also Open Source so the government cant shut it down..."

I more concerned about Big Business getting their fingers in the pie.

From Wikipedia:
"After a dozen downloads the Tribler software can roughly estimate the download taste of the user and recommends content.[4] This feature is based on collaborative filtering, also featured on websites such as Last.fm and Amazon.com."

The problem is that collaborative filtering drives everyone in the same general direction--it is essentially distilling down one's tastes to the bare minimum. If too many people focus on these "suggestions", less popular torrents will die of neglect. The conspiracy theorist in me says that this exactly the idea--kill torrents, not all, just some. From the perspective of most media outlets, the only good torrent is a dead torrent.

There is also the possibility of gaming the system of collaborative filtering to intentionally steer interest in specific torrents.

I'll stick with TPB. Seed/Peer counts speak volumes.

Re:Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511446)

Napster bad! Fire bad! --James Hetfield

Re:Back in Time. (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511210)

I think that integrated search is a good idea - now if I want to download something, I have to search on pirate bay, if I don't find it there, I go to isohunt and so on. I'd like the ability to search on all public trackers at once. As a mater of fact I'd also like to be able to search all private trackers (that I am a member of, or optionally can become a member) at once. Centralized search would be bad, but a decentralized search that looks like centralized (you only search in one place) would be great.

And I think that BT became popular not because it relied on the web for searching (you can search for ed2k links too), but because it usually is faster than eMule and similar. Usually people do not keep a lot of torrents seeding at one time so each torrent gets better upload speed than if it was divided among thousands of files in the "shared" folder. The original BitTorrent client even had one window for each .torrent, with uT it's easier to seed 100 torrents, but still more difficult than it would be with eMule, especially if I want to move the files around.

Also, there are private trackers for BitTorrent, that enforce good ratio and thus make downloads faster (since there are more seeders), I never heard of private eDonkey servers and Gnutella does not even have servers.

However, BitTorrent also has its disadvantages. Sharing is more difficult than "drop the file in your 'shared' folder or share the folder that the file s in", users that have/want the same files cannot download from each other because the files are in different .torrents.

Re:Back in Time. (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511886)

Torrentz is a free, fast and powerful meta-search engine combining results from dozens of torrent search engines

www.torrentz.com

Re:Back in Time. (3, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511234)

No Bittorrent client will be complete until it has an email client built in. A flight simulator would be nice too.

Re:Back in Time. (1)

beav007 (746004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511514)

What about a text editor? I hear that EMACs has one now...

Re:Back in Time. (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510866)

No, the protocol is splitting, with one fork preferential towards pirates and the other honoring the original aim, the legitimate publisher.

Re:Back in Time. (4, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511020)

You mean the legitimate publisher who wants to leech my limited monthly cap for their own purposes?

I'm glad Blizzard gives us the option to disable that in their games.

Re:Back in Time. (1)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511610)

I'm glad Blizzard gives us the option to disable that in their games.

My sarcasm detector is out of batteries. Does WoW really require subscribers to donate their upstream bandwidth for patches? Honest question.

Re:Back in Time. (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511624)

Yes, they use a torrent based distribution system for their patches. So, yes, while you are gaming, you are typically using some of your upstream bandwidth to help deliver patches to others.

Re:Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511786)

A truly small price to pay to ensure that the spice will flow when you need your next fix.

Re:Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511864)

Sons of fucking bitches!

Re:Back in Time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511980)

As the grandparent said: You have the option to disable it. Peer-to-peer patch distribution is enabled by default.

Peers Peering Particularly at Profitless Peers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510834)

What about man-in-the-middle peers?

Re:Peers Peering Particularly at Profitless Peers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510858)

man in the middle is good, at least when the man is me and I'm in the middle of a Kim Kardashian/J-Lo ass sandwich! Yum yum!

Re:Peers Peering Particularly at Profitless Peers. (2)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510928)

You really should get an account... like PizzaAnalogyGuy or something.

Another Victory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510888)

Oh, hurray. Another victory for cheap entertainment consumers over the people who work to entertain them. Pretty soon, there will be absolutely no point in creating entertainment since it can never get compensated by the people getting entertained. Cheap-asses unite!

Re:Another Victory (3, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510998)

Yes, because the only reason anyone would ever create anything is to get a paycheck.

Re:Another Victory (1)

mr_bubb (1171001) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511364)

Yes, I pity the poor, hardworking, impoverished studio heads and record company execs, who have always been the primary beneficiaries of royalties. The Beatles, as a group, got a farthing per record, BTW.

DHT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34510892)

Wasnt that the point of DHT?

To clarify (3, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510898)

The summary (and TFA) is misleading. This client isn't the first to support trackerless downloading. Most clients support DHT and PEX, and have for some time. You just need a single peer to bootstrap yourself, and you're good to go.

What Tribbler has done is created a P2P torrent search engine. I'm not sure if they're the first either (I swear I remember reading about some other client with P2P search a couple years ago), but it does appear they put some thought into making their feature set more user-friendly, with categorization ("Channels") and such.

and a torrent that hasn't disabled DHT/PEX... (0)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510950)

Most clients support DHT and PEX, and have for some time. You just need a single peer to bootstrap yourself, and you're good to go.

You also need to have a torrent that doesn't disable DHT and peer exchange. This has to be the most irritating "feature" of BitTorrent; the torrent file controls whether they're allowed. I understand why it exists and it'd be OK...if tracker administrators didn't abuse the hell out of it. I've lost track of how many times I've found a fairly new torrent that had a dead tracker.

Re:and a torrent that hasn't disabled DHT/PEX... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511172)

Most clients support DHT and PEX, and have for some time. You just need a single peer to bootstrap yourself, and you're good to go.

You also need to have a torrent that doesn't disable DHT and peer exchange. This has to be the most irritating "feature" of BitTorrent; the torrent file controls whether they're allowed. I understand why it exists and it'd be OK...if tracker administrators didn't abuse the hell out of it. I've lost track of how many times I've found a fairly new torrent that had a dead tracker.

It's a valuable feature if you want to allow private trackers to operate.

It's the fault of the site that disables it if they're going to disable DHT and not provide any incentive to actually seed.

Re:To clarify (3, Interesting)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511026)

Wouldn't this experience be a lot like the old eDonkey 2000 experience. The problem with no centralized servers is that no one pays attention to ratio and the like. In fact I don't think most eDonkey users ever thought in terms of ratios. Also, there is no place to go to request stuff and ask for new seeds. The reason I switched to torrents, (and it took me a long time), is because of the centralized tracking. Sure, the popular stuff is usually available, but try to get something obscure that you can only find online and you are probably screwed. At least that is how eDonkey always was. Now eDonkey had some servers, but my point is that I feel like the experience would be the same as sharing on the eD2k network. No comments, no tracking, no ratio enforcement, no one pulling fakes and spam. eD2k was a hazardous wasteland but of mines. How would any of this be addressed with peer-to-peer torrents?

Re:To clarify (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511136)

While the ratio concept is a good one, it's totally borked by ISPs providing things like 3Mbps down and 64kbps up. No matter how hard you try, you'll never get a good ratio.

Re:To clarify (1)

6350' (936630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511284)

This is blazingly untrue. Most users don't have a synchronous line, yet with only moderate effort ("stay connected after you're done" and "actually pay attention to how much you have downloaded and take it easy") these millions have no reall issue maintaining a ratio. You're Doing It Wrong.

Re:To clarify (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511384)

"stay connected after you're done" and "actually pay attention to how much you have downloaded and take it easy"

I think the other factor is likely to be "get onto the torrent early". If you are limited to a tiny up speed like that I don't expect many clients are going to bother you much if there are plenty of other available peers that'll serve faster.

If you are there near the start when the seed may be bottle necked your 64k will be valuable and will remain so until there's more seeds than demand.

Re:To clarify (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511168)

You could create a shared directory on each client just like eDonkey did and hash them ... just like eDonkey did ;) Since the requests are going to your machine you could really return any results you wanted as long as it has the corresponding hash map it can send and receive.

Re:To clarify (2)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511506)

I would say the advantage of eDonkey2000 (or eMule now) is the lack of ratios per file. You share large numbers of files and download large numbers. What gets uploaded is what's needed and requested by others, not necessarily a specific torrent you want to get a higher ratio on.

The no comments/fake filtering/requests/reseeds can be mostly solved the same way as Bittorrent has solved it, with a link site/forum community.

The other major advantage of ed2k is that there won't be two separate swarms for the same exact file like Bittorrent. Bittorrent really needs some kind of standardized hashing method per file, even if it's just added data in a torrent with the original Bittorrent hashing remaining intact. A problem I've seen a few times is where two separate (old/rare) torrents are of the same file but they both have no seeds, only partial availability, so neither one finishes even if together they would have the whole file.

I've actually had better luck with rare stuff on ed2k than Bittorrent because of that lack of (unnecessary) duplication.

eMule Collections (file with list of links) or Magnet Links (uri with hashes/filenames) are kind of my ideal, a hash based system for finding stuff not dependent on any site staying up.

Re:To clarify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511530)

Myself,the very reason I dont leave things to seed is i get annoying letters from my ISP threatening to cut my service when they catch me usually due to prolonged seeding.I pay very good $$ for both up and down speeds and should be able to share freely with other single use consumers.So without centralized tracking would I be able to leave my seeds?Im not sure if you're mising the point or am I???

kooky

Re:To clarify (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511926)

Have you tried changing the ports and forcing encryption [torrentfreak.com] (disabling legacy connections)?

Re:To clarify (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511032)

I'm not sure if they're the first either (I swear I remember reading about some other client with P2P search a couple years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXeem [wikipedia.org]

It failed however, due to the initial version having spyware and subsequent loss of users.

Re:To clarify (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511432)

What Tribbler has done is created a P2P torrent search engine. I'm not sure if they're the first either (I swear I remember reading about some other client with P2P search a couple years ago)

Yup, the eMule/aMule network has had serverless search via the Kad Network [wikipedia.org] for years. Works pretty well.

Re:To clarify (4, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511456)

Bootstrap is the interesting issue.

You can't have a situation with no server involved, ever, unless you're distributing the software on a friend-to-friend basis. There *has* to be a root node or selection of root nodes that the software knows about when it's installed, unless they have sufficiently advanced technology that it's indistinguishable from magic. Or they use some sort of brute force search....

Sure, once a node is online and given enough other nodes stay online enough of the time, it would be possible to have a persistent network.

I suppose you could do something like search google for random torrents, join in, test the folks you connect to for being part of the decentralised network, grab network info from there etc. It still uses google as a central reference point but it would be more robust than having some sort of hard-coded 'peer tracker' server, or using any sort of brute-force port scan of the internet.

Re:To clarify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511740)

You just need one torrent link, right? Like this Tribbler software perhaps?

Re:To clarify (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511940)

Well, the TFA says - "Users can search and download content without a server ever getting involved"

And I was trying to figure out how that might work. If it's "no servers after the first time" or "no servers after a tribler peer has been found", that's fine, but you need something that fits the description of a server at some point in that. I was just thinking aloud at methods that might not require any user action and work straight off without requiring a specific Tribler central server.

'cos you can't just utter the magic words "In the cloud!" and have it work...

(not that they mention 'cloud', it's just my pet hate at the moment)

Ok, but. (5, Insightful)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510902)

But how does moderation work then?

With a large public tracker like PirateBay there are mods and members who weed out and delete the malware, spam, and bad torrents that are on the tracker. Wouldn't a distributed system like this actually make it easier for "bad" content to get uploaded? Its like Limewire all over again.

The idea here seems to be that "you cant stop the signal". But I am not sure how they get around the fact that you don't have to kill the signal, just garble it.

Re:Ok, but. (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510952)

But how does moderation work then?

Throw in web of trust?

Send in $1 to get your 'reviewer' certificate signed by some trusted entity. Sort search results by number of signed positive reviews; and then number of downloads which "reviewer nodes" saw occuring.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511144)

So if you want to shut the whole thing down, you go after the "trusted entity". Sort of destroys the point of decentralizing.

Re:Ok, but. (3, Interesting)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511320)

You don't need a single "trusted entitity", a web of trust [wikipedia.org] is based on your own prior experience and what others around you will vouch for.

If you have downloaded a torrent signed by someone before and been happy with it your software might be happy downloading more from them without warning. If you haven't seen anything from that person before your software might poll your peers to see if they will vouch for it and ultimately give you a choice one way or another.

Various key servers could be set up to serve trust information but would not present a critical point of failure or (for dodgy torrents) be at much legal risk because they wouldn't be serving anything remotely related to other peoples copyrighted information.

Re:Ok, but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511906)

Youre completely out of line!!!ok theres perhaps millions of people willing to give a credit card number for a mere $1.But most of those people I would call 'sucker'

      my opinion

kooky

Re:Ok, but. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511008)

Well, if ten peers show up, maybe it's not so good. If ten thousand show up, maybe it's legit.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511068)

That's a measurement of a torrents health, the seed/leech ratio, not quality. So while the 1000peer file might be done faster than the 10peer file, its a moot point if you're downloading static or malware.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511106)

Except 10,000 people probably won't be retarded enough to just keep around garbage files that didn't work when they downloaded them.

Way to miss the point.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511424)

Except they probably will.


Also, botnets.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511928)

If you ever used one of the free trackers you'd find out that a lot of the fake/spam/malware files posing as movies or tv shows have thousands of fake peers. This is to trick people like you that think there is strength or knowledge in numbers.

So just because a file says it has 17543 peers, it really doesnt.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511156)

Too easy to fake. Look at how many limewire spam files are supposedly with 100+ peers

Re:Ok, but. (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511378)

So if a botnet gets on with 10,000 users, then everyone on the Internet will believe it's therefore a legitimate file? Or if something new comes out and two people have it, so no one else downloads it, how can it become big enough to appear "legit"? There's no good way to solve these issues, so you are pretty much guaranted that there will be a flood of malware. Not that I care. I hate piracy. But the point stands.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511176)

Common sense and an antivirus software could be used to weed out a majority of the malware. As for the spam and bad torrents, I have no idea.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511804)

Antivirus is useless if the user doesn't even know what a file extension is, let alone a friggen .exe. People will click files labelled pop trash.mp3.exe.

The thing about common sense. Common sense simply isn't that common.

Re:Ok, but. (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511192)

You could still rate at the clients machine and propagate the torrent signature to all the other clients there by distributing the ratings in almost real time on already discovered client/hosts. Meta moderations could also be propagated to blacklist. Since this is added to the torrent you can sync hashes to ensure everyone is on the same page. YMMV

Re:Ok, but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511442)

Digital Signatures

Re:Ok, but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512040)

There should definitely be a moderation system in place, and should be as easy to use as the facebook like, but of course extend it with a little more detail,like/dislike, or good quality/bad quality/malware

If there's no server, then I'm guessing that each peer will need to have his/her rating on his/her own computer within the torrent file you download? If you download the file from another which has already rated the file, either the rating is cleared, or invalid until you rate it and you overwrite the old rating.

I'd also love it if the program would discreetly remind you to rate the data you've downloaded.

If this is an option, then there's no real reason why we couldn't even go further with the facebook style, what if you could add certain peers as "friends" (both have to accept friendship status), and you could see what they're downloading, and you could add comments or tags (I'm guessing a database linking the torrent file with the comments on the users machine?), or grab the torrent as well, and so on.

Like this though, but it would be nice to have some kind of a rating system which makes sense.

Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510934)

this, dns-p2p, and etc are turning the internet into a truly decentralized, uncontrollable, REAL cloud as it should have been from the start.

i, for one, am not suprised that the ones to save net freedom, are ending up being people who have been accused of piracy. after all, if it is not detrimental to the control of private interests, why villify something in mass media, right ...

Re:Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511004)

this, dns-p2p, and etc are turning the internet into a truly decentralized, uncontrollable, REAL cloud as it should have been from the start.

Not really. The physical topology of the internet's infrastructure is not close to that of a decentralized cloud.

BitTorrent is a really inefficient protocol, as it reduces use of the biggest "pipes" at the cost of increasing use of the smallest "pipes". The only reason it's been so successful is that it allows content provides to reduce their own costs, even though by doing so they are increasing the costs of others by far more.

It's similar to the classic Tragedy of the Commons in that everyone doing what's best personally for them makes everyone suffer.

Re:Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511218)

If we were able to have higher throughput behind the ISP the bit torrent protocol would be much more efficient but that's only because of the low ISP > Client ratio. If there are 1M users on any ISP it would be quicker getting what I'm looking for from one of them rather than the actual source. Which is also why caching on large scale networks are beneficial.

Re:Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511972)

Why can't you do it on an application level, based on allocated IP lists? Back when we had a distinction of national and international traffic here in Portugal (international capped to 10GB, national unlimited) somebody made a eMule fork called Blowfish which had an IP based filter, and would let you download only from you isp or nationally.

The same system could be used to give priorities instead of simple blacklisting.

Re:Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511110)

Only at the application layer, unfortunately. There's still a definite hierarchy of autonomous systems handling the border routing. Mesh networking is the only way to really decentralize, and that is just not as fast. Luckly, it's getting there. However there will always be big pipes to plug in to to get to where you want to go fast. And since most of those are going to be owned by a big corporation or a government, well, there's always encryption.

Re:Wow. p2p is turning net into a huge cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511672)

Uncontrollable? The IP addresses of everyone in the torrent are still perfectly available by joining, just as they were before. This changes nothing.

Mod parent -1, overrated.

asics and mac (-1, Offtopic)

adelamanda (1954906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510948)

moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] asics gel shoes [asicsshoesshop.com] running shoes asics [asicsshoesshop.com] asics running [19lou.com] asics running [asicsshoesshop.com] WOMEN MINI COOPER [asicsshoesshop.com] women Whizzer Lo [asicsshoesshop.com] Kid [asicsshoesshop.com] women Mexico Mid Runner [asicsshoesshop.com] http://blog.19lou.com/index.php?action-userlink-linkid-187882 [19lou.com] http://www.asicsshoesshop.com/ [asicsshoesshop.com] our email:asicsshoesshop@hotmail.com ASICS GEL-STRATUS 2.1 [asicsshoesshop.com] , Kanuchi [asicsshoesshop.com] , mexico 66 [asicsshoesshop.com] , mac makeup [mac-wholesale.com] , mac brush [mac-wholesale.com] , http://www.mac-wholesale.com/ [mac-wholesale.com] our email:mac-wholesale@hotmail.com asics gel shoes [asicsshoesshop.com] asics running [asicsshoesshop.com] 180 color eyeshadow [mac-wholesale.com] mac makeup [mac-wholesale.com]

at some point (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510976)

at some point all digital media will be available for unlimited download by subscription, and eventually via tax. [at least for the people]

A bit like the library, or maybe youtube (as in you pay for the goods that advertise of youtube ergo you pay advertising 'tax' on the goods)

If you can download it for free from youtube, how many times are you going to watch the same damb thing, is it really worth making everyone download it every single time?

Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (5, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34510982)

Giant waste of time, bittorrents benefit is from the community bitching about bad torrents, you cant do that without a web of trust or a trusted third party.

Re:Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (3, Funny)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511124)

Are you kidding? Once I get my hacked client together to return Rick Astley videos for every search any peer does, there will be even more complaining.

So what's missing? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511178)

I don't think it's a waste of time in the sense that it's a step in a potentially useful direction.

If you want to add trust capabilities to the mix there are non-centralised ways to do it such as allowing digital signatures.

Re:Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (1)

TheScreenIsnt (939701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511272)

Giant waste of time, bittorrents benefit is from the community bitching about bad torrents, you cant do that without a web of trust or a trusted third party.

But torrent search sites are neither webs of trust nor trusted third parties, right? They assist in separating the wheat from the chaff simply by allowing the wisdom of crowds to accumulate through posts linked to a torrent file.
Seems to me that this "what are people saying about this torrent?" functionality is consistent with complete decentralization; the community can in principle be built around the client instead of some site. Who hosts the discussions? Everyone who participates in them. Seems as cloud-able as anything else. Mods *can* be replaced by user ratings and associated karma, I believe.

Re:Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511454)

Mods *can* be replaced by user ratings and associated karma, I believe.

And how, pray tell, do you differentiate legitimate users from malicious ones? Karma works because a trusted third party maintains it.

Re:Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (1)

TheScreenIsnt (939701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512060)

My *hypothesis*, (note "I believe") is that users themselves can serve this function by rating comments. Pretty simple, really. You can imagine any number of integration schemes that connect these ratings to a reputation value.

Sure, you can be pessimistic and say "never work", but the sociology of online communities is a young science. An anarchical web is important to me, so these questions are worth my energy and optimism.

Re:Excellent Work You've Invented Gnutella (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511470)

Giant waste of time, bittorrents benefit is from the community bitching about bad torrents, you cant do that without a web of trust or a trusted third party.

I would like to appreciate the great work done by You
Generic Viagra [genericsmed.com] Viagra Online [genericsmed.com] Cheap Generic Viagra [genericsmed.com] Generic Cialis [genericsmed.com] Generic Levitra [genericsmed.com] generic propecia [genericsmed.com] Generic Viagra [buy-pharma.com] careprost [genericsmed.com] Lumigan [genericsmed.com]

Been done along time ago (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511012)

What about apps like emule ? They have been around for almost 10 years now and have no centralized database or tracking

Re:Been done along time ago (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511104)

been poisoned to near death by people who are paid by media company's to fill them with fake files and Trojans.

what would be cool (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511028)

youtube, DVB etc.. plugins for instance ripping or downloading or recording and sharing.

point, rip and share.

maybe some darknet intergration,

voip, IM integration.

record that call with you boss and blast it out over the internet.

Still IP data available (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511040)

There's still the fact that IP data is available. Any user on the network will be broadcasting their activities making them vulnerable. Protecting users' anonymity is just as important as decentralizing any part of the network. In my opinion, this is the most important aspect of P2P that needs to be fixed. Not that I have any novel ideas on how that can be done....

The future. (3, Interesting)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511066)

It's becoming ever so popular to complain about ICANN or otherwise feel that a decentralized internet is the solution to our problems. I'm not a prophet, but even I can see the future on this one. The ones who will benefit the most from a completely decentralized DNS and/or P2P system are the ones who control the biggest botnets within the network. The rest of us will be so inundated with garbage that the internet will essentially become completely useless.

That's not to say that ICANN and especially the RIAA et al. aren't problems, but I don't see this becoming a viable solution. So I'm a skeptic, for now.

Re:The future. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511130)

And you make exactly the same mistake that RIAA and friends make: just because criminals will use it, does not mean that ONLY criminals will use it.

Criminals have always been quick to pounce on new technology. That's no excuse for killing the technology so that nobody else can use it. I doubt very much the picture is as gloomy as you make it out to be. And even if it is: prior restraint is not the answer.

Re:The future. (2)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511326)

No, centralized control of the internet is a bad thing. Also, why should the US be in control, why not $VeryReligiousMuslimCountry, China or North Korea? I'm sure they would like to shut down some sites too.

And botnets can cause problems in the current situation too. However, I still think that properly implemented decentralized DNS is a good thing. A completely decentralized P2P system that's actively in use will make torrent sites obsolete and make it harder for US companies to take down the files.

We have garbage even now, but currently it's harder to get around it, since the garbage is part of the centralized system (domain takeovers of WikiLeaks, some torrent sites etc).

Criminals can abuse almost any technology, but that does not mean that everybody else should be prevented from using it:
Do you use encryption to do your banking? Do you know that terrorists use encryption too?
How about anonymous networks (tor etc)? Terrorists also use them.
A knife is useful to cut food. It is also easier to kill someone with a knife than just bare hands.
A car is useful for going long distances. It can also be used to deliver illegal drugs or run someone over.

Re:The future. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512050)

Criminals can abuse almost any technology, but that does not mean that everybody else should be prevented from using it:
Do you use encryption to do your banking? Do you know that terrorists use encryption too?
How about anonymous networks (tor etc)? Terrorists also use them.
A knife is useful to cut food. It is also easier to kill someone with a knife than just bare hands.
A car is useful for going long distances. It can also be used to deliver illegal drugs or run someone over.

That wasn't parent's argument - it was that it would be impossible to use due to being flooded with crap. And it does happen, just look at eDonkey networks. I stopped using it when 6 in every 10 files were fake.

What's the difference? (1)

Scrapz (1941854) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511306)

So, how does this make it any different from Limewire, or Napster? I understand that there's the added benefit the swarm, but... really, how is this any different? It'll get driven to the ground with junk and viruses. I'll stick to my private tracker, TYVM.

nice (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511414)

And once you'll get cryptography enforced and a few more TCP/IP tricks I wonder how riaa will stop p2p.

Re:nice (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511696)

Outlaw crypto and those TCP/IP tricks. Make possession of software that uses these technologies prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

p2p web pages (1)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511422)

Maybe I'm behind the time with this type of technology, but is there a way that this could be used to access web pages like wikileaks to prevent servers from being shut down or blocked by dns?

Good Idea, Bad Implementation (1)

CobaltBlueDW (899284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511440)

A distributed search feature is great, but the Trible software is bereft of features. I recommend sticking with uTorret, and hoping uTorrent developers implement a similar feature.

Indulge me with the answer to this, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511460)

Legitimately speaking, why exactly would one require a search engine inside a bittorrent client? I mean, if you want a torrent of something that's actually on the up-and-up, couldn't you just google for the website that seeds it, and click on the torrent link at that site?

Re:Indulge me with the answer to this, please... (2)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511710)

Because you can't rely on google or the website being there when you need them. The Wikileaks conspiracy is a case in point. Their DNS provider, their money transfer companies and their hosting company tried to make them disappear. So far, Google is working as intended, but for how long? Also, organizations with fewer resources might wither and die under such attacks.

Re:Indulge me with the answer to this, please... (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511744)

Better yet, couldn't you just include the torrent hash encoded in base64, upload to a free website, let Google cache it and have them act as the indexer? It's not like they can do anything illegal.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?