Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

71 comments

ICQ (3, Interesting)

Bodero (136806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629106)

Can you really do group chat with no central server?

ICQ proved that it was possible over a decade ago. Simultaneously, they proved that it was not a good idea (as I remember friends saying, "Who are you talking to? I don't see him! Re-invite!").

Re:ICQ (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629124)

Simultaneously, they proved that it was not a good idea (as I remember friends saying, "Who are you talking to? I don't see him! Re-invite!")

That's an implementation issue, it's quite possible to write p2p chat software at least as good as existing centralized chat software.

Re:ICQ (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629226)

Skype is p2p and while you might not see someone right after you connect it usually ends up showing everyone and is reliable enough.

Re:ICQ (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 years ago | (#36629542)

Erm Skype does use central servers for coordination.

Re:ICQ (3, Informative)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#36629604)

I believe the only central server is for authentication (as it should be). It might also save the "initial" budy list, but a local copy is also kept.

Or actually, 1 minute in google:

http://www.mjalali.com/blog/?p=10 [mjalali.com]

"Skype Authentication Server: This is the only centralized Skype server which is used to authenticate Skype users. "

Re:ICQ (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 years ago | (#36629654)

There are also super nodes that Skype runs. If a client doesn't know any peers they connect to a known supernode.

Re:ICQ (1)

xnpu (963139) | about 3 years ago | (#36630748)

Not just that, depending on your firewall situation your chats will use the supernode as well.

Re:ICQ (1)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#36631570)

supernodes are not run by skype, they are user's computers that satisfy some conditions (not behind a firewall, decent computer/connection). It's all peer to peer.

Re:ICQ (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629298)

Or they proved that you suffer from hallucinations.

Re:ICQ (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 3 years ago | (#36629884)

Bolo an old tank game used ring communication it was very effective as long as everyone was close one idiot with a long ping could bring the game to a hault.

Re:ICQ (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | about 3 years ago | (#36643062)

That line was a bit difficult to read until I realized that you glued two sentences together it is not a very good idea to do that you know?

Re:ICQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630492)

Can you really do group chat with no central server?

ICQ proved that it was possible over a decade ago. Simultaneously, they proved that it was not a good idea (as I remember friends saying, "Who are you talking to? I don't see him! Re-invite!").

UT OH!

Re:ICQ (1)

Drafell (1263712) | about 3 years ago | (#36632830)

If only I could mod this :-(

Magnet links (4, Funny)

jmitchel!jmitchel.co (254506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629118)

Magnet links, how do they work?

Re:Magnet links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36629174)

Well done mister.

Re:Magnet links (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36629220)

LOL [youtube.com]

Re:Magnet links (1)

mug funky (910186) | about 3 years ago | (#36630402)

i just threw up in my mouth. that's worse than goatse

Re:Magnet links (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#36630698)

"i just threw up in my mouth. that's worse than goatse"

  No you ain't seen nothing [vodpod.com] lol.

That troll needs to be more original and yes that link is not work safe, but I find the reactions hysterical.

Re:Magnet links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36643676)

I always wonder why a person would "throw up in [their] mouth" ... I rarely puke, but when I do, I prefer it goes out of my mouth. In a toilet or bucket is preferable, but even cleaning it up off the floor seems better than having a mouthful of puke. What are you going to do next? Fucking swallow it back down? Gross. I couldn't do it. So you'll probably just spit it out anyway... might as well let it go out of your body on the first shot like it was intended to.

You people who say "I just threw up in my mouth" are worse than goatse. To use the words of the Angry Video Game Nerd, I'd rather eat the rotten asshole
of a road killed skunk than throw up in my mouth. Well... okay, maybe it's not THAT bad.

Re:Magnet links (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629258)

Magnet links, how do they work?

Lobsters [i-am-bored.com]

Re:Magnet links (0)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 3 years ago | (#36629412)

Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young In a world of magnet links and miracles Our thoughts strayed constantly and without boundary The ringing of the division bell had begun...

I did it at Apple in 1991 (5, Informative)

hchesley (2327336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629142)

Reference: Harry R. Chesley, "Asynchronous Background Networking on the Macintosh," Develop 5, Winter 1991. It was called Rumor Monger.

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (3, Informative)

hchesley (2327336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629190)

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (2)

elsurexiste (1758620) | about 3 years ago | (#36630180)

We are really good at reinventing the wheel. :)

"If you don't learn from the past, it'll repeat itself", or something like that.

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (2)

hitmark (640295) | about 3 years ago | (#36631554)

Difference is that the mentioned tech was limited to a single appletalk network. The new stuff got a potential global reach.

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (1)

hchesley (2327336) | about 3 years ago | (#36635376)

Implementation detail. The algorithm used in 1991 could have been implemented over TCP/IP, except for initial discovery, which is not hard to solve. My point was in response to the question in this posting that seemed to imply that decentralized chat might not be possible. There's no question it's possible, as demonstrated in my system long ago. That's not to take away from the value of Williams' implementation, which is built on today's infrastructure and is probably very useful. And anyway, I love decentralized systems of all flavors...

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (1)

drb226 (1938360) | about 3 years ago | (#36639040)

Playing the good ol' "regurgitate what they said but slightly differently" trick:
Difference is that the theorized tech is limited to a single planet. The new new stuff got a potential universal reach.

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36634434)

One of the protocol design truths is "If you make anything remotely usable, someone's bound to reimplement your protocol twenty years from now."

Re:I did it at Apple in 1991 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630066)

That would be great for talking about the upcoming Apple products.

Actually... (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629274)

I implemented something like this once, a long time ago, on a small scale. Just use sequence numbers to determine order, it might not be perfect, but it worked. Each client held a hash table with a limit size (can't remember) of the people they could "see". If you couldn't find a target you'd just "multicast" it to all the ones you knew were there and ask them to deliver, with a limited number of hops (to avoid infinite cycles).

The initial connection relied on invites. This was academic work, kind of a proof of concept. Why would this be news in this day and age baffles me.

Re:Actually... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629320)

This was academic work, kind of a proof of concept. Why would this be news in this day and age baffles me.

Because no one cares about academic work. This is interesting because people can actually use it.

Re:Actually... (1)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#36629582)

you're not getting my point :)

this was common and part of a course project for everyone there.

it would be usable and it actually is a (very) simple version of how the Gnutella network worked which, if I remember correctly, allowed a very minimalist chat.

also, skype is 99.999% p2p and it has been around for years (although it is a bit more advanced that this scheme).

meh, for anyone that studied this in any degree there is nothing that astonishing in what has been done. Hurray, uTorrent has a chat client that is p2p based. Still cool, but not news.

Re:Actually... (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 3 years ago | (#36630388)

this was common and part of a course project for everyone there.

This might be useful information considering the website says that this is "patent pending". This could well be prior art. I haven't looked at the patent application yet though.

Can you? (5, Informative)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36629326)

Yes, and it's called WASTE. Came out in '03 and I've been "running" a decentralized mesh non-stop ever since.

Re:Can you? (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | about 3 years ago | (#36629426)

Freaking awesome, thanks!

Re:Can you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36629498)

This is what we used at college when the admins started blocking DC++.

Re:Can you? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#36629770)

That's what many people sharing on local uni networks started to use after DC++ hubs started to get closed. Funny thing is, while much harder to lock down, WASTE network utterly rapes local bandwidth. So closing DC++ hubs typically turned out a major pain for support, who instead of seeing decrease in internal traffic, saw a very sharp increase.

Re:Can you? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36632084)

This has been possible for a long time.
Some applications that can do this apart from WASTE are:
- Oneswarm
- Retroshare
- GNUnet
- Torchat
All decentralized, and apart from torchat they are all activity being developed.

Re:Can you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36636368)

Does anyone know if somebody's working on a port of WASTE 1.7 to Linux and MAC? The new 16k packet size network sounds nice, but it's Windows only, leaving us non-MS guys all on the obsolete network.

IRC (5, Funny)

wcoenen (1274706) | about 3 years ago | (#36629520)

Good old IRC isn't centralized either! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsplit [wikipedia.org]

Re:IRC (0)

yarnosh (2055818) | about 3 years ago | (#36630108)

Well, isn't centralized in the sense that you can sort of cluster servers, but it isn't P2P either. You're still connected to a dedicated server.

Re:IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630432)

whhooooooooooooooooooosh

Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36629602)

What ever happened to SILC?

Re:Prior Art (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 3 years ago | (#36631808)

Prior art? This isn't a patent

Encryption (1)

slasho81 (455509) | about 3 years ago | (#36629612)

Is the chat encrypted?

Re:Encryption (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36629764)

WASTE is encrypted and decentralized.

Re:Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36629906)

it will have the option for encryption once it goes stable...the infrastructure is all there, it just needs a clean ui

Magnet links? (1, Interesting)

SkOink (212592) | about 3 years ago | (#36629950)

I must be a bit confused about how exactly a magnet link works. In order for me to access the magnet stream for a file I wanted to download, I would need a magnet link pointing to somebody who was serving the file, right?

What happens when the person who the magnet link references turns off their computer? If the magnet link needs to "check in" and update itself on a regular basis to prevent against this, what makes it functionally different than hosting a .torrent?

Re:Magnet links? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630782)

That's not at all how they work. magnet: URIs [wikimedia.org] (usually) only contain a description of the file to download, not where to find it. The description includes a hash so it can be found on a p2p network.

It uses the DHT (2)

burris (122191) | about 3 years ago | (#36630010)

The BitTorrent DHT is a giant distributed database formed among most of the BT clients that maps ip addresses / port numbers to arbitrary keys. That's how the clients talking in the same room find each other.

Re:It uses the DHT (1)

burris (122191) | about 3 years ago | (#36630018)

I forgot to mention that I think the Azureus/Vuze DHT and clients, which isn't compatible with the DHT that all other clients use, have had this type of chat feature for a long time. I think they create a chat room for each torrent, so you can chat with other people downloading what you are downloading.

Re:It uses the DHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630238)

and non-torrent related chat rooms? i don't think uchat is limited to just talking about torrents

Bonjour and cspace (1)

munky99999 (781012) | about 3 years ago | (#36630144)

Bonjour is multicast decentralized chatting.

http://cspace.in/ [cspace.in]

cspace is basically what OP is speaking about.

Retroshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630160)

Have a look at Retroshare ( http://retroshare.sourceforge.net )

Nice. (2)

cshark (673578) | about 3 years ago | (#36630162)

Totally decentralized chat! Awesome! We've needed this for a very long time, and I don't know why it's taken so long to put together. Not that I'm complaining. Soon as there's a Flash applet that'll handle the protocol, we're in business. I hope this is widely adopted.

Re:Nice. (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about 3 years ago | (#36630760)

The Flash meshing is genuinely impressive. It's a very real implementation and it looks like it really works. The full implementation will be available in 11 - I'm honestly looking forward to it.

MAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630248)

mail is not centralized...

Re:MAIL (1)

mug funky (910186) | about 3 years ago | (#36630424)

yes it is.

Am I the first ham in the room? APRS was earlier! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630500)

Okay, it's not the same thing at all (just like most of the other things people are suggesting were first/earlier), but it is decentralized chat with radios, since 1992.

Look it up, even if you're not a ham, it's pretty cool stuff.

73 de AB9UL

Re:Am I the first ham in the room? APRS was earlie (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 3 years ago | (#36631460)

ARPANET, hell, how you think the POTS works? Or even old telegraph cables. The difference is whether packet switched, broadcast or circuit switched.

Re:Am I the first ham in the room? APRS was earlie (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 3 years ago | (#36631464)

I think if I chuck text files to each other over freenet, I probably have elementary distributed chat.

Does this mean there are no bans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36630738)

No ops? SWEET

cspace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36631386)

does cspace need a central server?

Was done years ago! (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 3 years ago | (#36631456)

Yes, the old UNIX chat command didn't need a central server, every system was a client and a server. Nothing magic about expanding this with DHTs to make connecting easier.

R/W access to all torrents ? (1)

matt007 (80854) | about 3 years ago | (#36631646)

When launching uChat :

" uChat is requesting access to :

ability to run in the background
read access to all torrents
write access to all torrents

Would you grant this app access ?"

NO, si i cant test it.

Re:R/W access to all torrents ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36632026)

NO, si i cant test it.

WTF does this mean?

Re:R/W access to all torrents ? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 3 years ago | (#36636404)

Latin languages use the word "si" or "se" for the english "if". I guess the GP failed at translating his tought.

Re:R/W access to all torrents ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36671226)

cool, decentralized chat.... or wait...

Nice idea (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#36632214)

...and apparently fairly old and easy to implement. Its a shame that those elite hackers at LULZSec didn't consider using it.

Chat with no server (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36633100)

Doesn't "Roger Wilco" work without a central server?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...