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!

Kim Dotcom's Mega Claims 1 Million Users Within 24 Hours

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the good-start dept.

Cloud 211

Kim Dotcom's new "Mega" cloud service appears to be a hit. According to Dotcom over 1 million have signed up for their free 50 gigabytes of storage. Although that is about 1% of the Dropbox user base, it's not a bad start. From the article: "Mega quickly jumped up to around 100,000 users within an hour or so of the site's official launch. A few hours after that, Mega had ballooned up to approximately a quarter of a million users. Demand was great enough to knock Mega offline for a number of users attempting to either connect up or sign up for new accounts, and Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

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

Considering the reputation that megaupload had ... (4, Interesting)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#42643127)

Considering the reputation that megaupload had, I don't think he'll have any problems getting users. I think, like so many other websites, he will have trouble monitizing the service without becoming obnoxious.

I'm sure adblock will deal with the obnoxious ads ...

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#42643245)

I'm sure adblock will deal with the obnoxious ads ...

But isn't that their monitizing plan? To you mega you will need to run their ad blocker which replaces normal advertisments with ads from mega.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643531)

that's for megabox, his music service.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (3)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42643575)

Interesting. Mega seeks to achieve profitability by sharing revenue with participating artists - creating a channel with as little rent-taking as possible. As opposed to the super-rent-seekers: today's media and telecom conglomerates.

Kim says Megaupload was killed by the Obama administration, as a gimme to the media cartels - in return for financing and as a replacement for failing with SOPA. I'd add that Megaupload was SPECIFICALLY targeted over Eastern European hosters for enforceability, and over others because of Dotcom's incipient "MegaKey" agreement [forbes.com] with big-name urban artists [torrentfreak.com] .

So, from where will the source of this revenue come? Ads are obvious - but really another nut to crack. I don't think this is what the new Mega has in mind for a foundation pillar.

Rather, I suspect that the artist agreements are expected to drive enough subscriber interest, for real takes, vs. simple freeloaders. The volume of signup in the past 24 hours is a great validation for Dotcom, if prospective participants need prompting.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42643609)

The artists want out of these RIAA handcuffs [torrentfreak.com] as badly as do their fans. They see [torrentfreak.com] there is a different, more direct model that doesn't fatten the talentless go-betweens sitting in air-conditioned offices, producing no value at either end of the production pipeline.

Sorry, Mr. Ego Hat, David Geffen.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42644133)

Agreed. And, speaking of that...

"The doctors want out of these insurance company handcuffs as badly as do their patients."

There. Modified that for you...

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#42644045)

I thought their monetizing plan would probably be more akin to dropbox's monetizing plan. I'm not sure what that would be, and I haven't been able to actually start using mega, but it sounds like dropbox, only a lot more secure.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#42644201)

Megakey [digitaltrends.com]

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643359)

I thought it was free and then had paid plans.

I'm sure their business model is alluring enough to attract plenty of paying customers.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42643381)

I think, like so many other websites, he will have trouble monitizing the service without becoming obnoxious.

I assume he may be going for paid premium accounts

When I use a free (valuable) service, I always consider (and sometimes purchase) the premium account. Seems fair.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643545)

It's a shame there's nothing between the free tier and the first paid tier. 100GB would be more than enough for me, and the cheapest pro account is still too expensive for how much I'd use it.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#42643889)

If it is anything like megaupload, the differences on the first tier and free account will be the download links. You get a faster download and the people you give the links to does not have to wait for a specific server or be limited in speed because of public servers being overloaded.

This is probably only valuable if you are hosting files for work or something and need a quick way to disseminate them outside the building. Most smaller companies who are not into web services do not have a lot of extra upstream bandwidth.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (4, Informative)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#42643511)

Links in the summary... NONE of them to the actual service. Brilliant!

Here is the actual site: https://mega.co.nz/ [mega.co.nz]

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (1, Funny)

beckett (27524) | about 2 years ago | (#42644065)

1 million users within 24 hours = i can 'register', but can't do anything, like upload my own files. this seems to be one of those features we take for granted on most cloud services.

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42644085)

Mega Conz?

Is that supposed to be a reference to the founders as convicts? Or the users becoming future convicts?

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42644169)

You're new here, aren't you ? :)
Slashdot articles, la creme de la creme of journalism...

Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643873)

Do you "bronies" realize that you are a disgrace to humanity? Your mere existence is worse than Hitler, the Soviets, Native American Genocide, and all suffering and death to come combined. Know why? Because your predecessors survived through it, and you spend your days wishing that you could have sex with a horse. How would your medieval ancestors, breaking their backs in fields just to have their towns pillaged and raped feel about you slobbering over this shit? You are literally the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth.

Bbbut, bbut, bbut... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643139)

but I don't have 50GB of porn to fill it...

Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... (5, Funny)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#42643167)

That's why you spend the next few weeks downloading porn, followed by the next few months uploading it all to Mega and freeing the space in your hard drive, and then... you'll have to download it *again* from Mega just to be able to watch it.

Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643237)

I'm sure you'll be able to rectify that quite quickly.

Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... (4, Funny)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#42643927)

but I don't have 50GB of porn to fill it...

You need to hand in your geek card. Immediately.

Mega's availability remains spotty ... (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#42643143)

Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing

...but it's sure better than the current state of megavideo.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643157)

I hope it stays.

I signed up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643173)

Do it for Schwartz, do it for Anon, do it for the fact that you can't copyright my electrons. The only way to win the war, is total technical superiority, and out the traitors who work for DRM companies.The the orignal plan for the internet was supposed to survive nuclear holocaust, it's time put it the ultimate test! You know it's true. In the future my electrons will even penetrate supermax prisons and free the unfreeable.

Re:I signed up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643207)

I don't support Kim.com or Anonymous. Nor do I support DRM or the US Government.

Re:I signed up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643541)

Are you at least an athletic supporter?

Re:I signed up (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 2 years ago | (#42643743)

I don't support Kim.com or Anonymous. Nor do I support DRM or the US Government.

You're a rebel without a cause.

How are we supposed to help Anonymous (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42643451)

when they are busy ratting each other out to the FBI? What do they need help with - negotiating their plea agreements with federal prosecutors?

is it secure? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643181)

is it encrypted transmission and storage? otherwise its just another dropbox clone. also, 1st post!

Re:is it secure? (5, Informative)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#42643243)

is it encrypted transmission and storage? otherwise its just another dropbox clone. also, 1st post!

Yes, Yes, No it's not, and no you weren't.

Teething Problems (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643183)

The patchy availability will be resolved soon I hope, but there's a major flaw I ran into, which is that when you sign up it doesn't ask you to confirm your password by typing it twice. This means you can make typos without realising it. Because the password is also an encryption key, you can't reset it. You can't delete the account either, nor can you register two accounts to one email address. I made a typo in my password. Net result: I permanently can't access my account, nor can I register a new one with my preferred email address.

Re:Teething Problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643417)

There are other issues too. I tried to upload a small HTML test file in Firefox 18 and it never uploaded. MEGA initially asks you to use a real HTML5 browser and suggests as Chrome download link. So I tried it again in Chrome and it worked. It took about 30 seconds to start the transfter to the cloud. Their fancy HTML5 UI is cool but it has issues. Other features people might not be aware of is that you can right-click your folder and get a link to share with friends. So here we go again sharing, uh, free stuff. So the encryption is how they intend to get around the Feds. I guess having to have your friend's keys also makes it more difficult to share.

Try an E-mail multiplier (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#42643421)

Try an E-mail multiplier, such as SpamGourmet [spamgourmet.com] .

You can set up any number of separate E-mail addresses which get forwarded to your main E-mail, and if you set mega as the "exclusive sender" there's no limit count on that address.

Re:Teething Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643449)

I think that is a feature. If they could reset your password, doesn't that mean they have access to your files?

Re:Teething Problems (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#42643749)

Not being able to reset the password on their side is a feature.

Not requiring password confirmation is a bug, and a pretty amateurish one, to be perfectly honest.

Re:Teething Problems (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643465)

Lesson from this: write your password in clear text in a terminal window or notepad or something else that is local to your computer, write it down and then cut/paste it into the password dialogue. Then unless you have issues using cut-n-paste, you should know exactly what the password is, even with a "enter once" system.

Re:Teething Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643751)

I had tried to setup an account with my preferred address, and found myself unable to login. I then did as you described with my secondary email, still unable to login even pasting in the password. I was wondering if it's because I/m in the US.

Re:Teething Problems (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#42643475)

You're also in trouble if you mistype your e-mail address.. you'll have to register all over again.... Personally I use a password manager to generate and save a secure strong password, anyways, so I don't type it in the first place.... :)

Re:Teething Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643519)

tried +mega@example.com?

Re:Teething Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643543)

OP here, that's a fantastic idea! Thanks a lot for this, I hadn't thought of that :)

Re:Teething Problems (2)

benf_2004 (931652) | about 2 years ago | (#42643611)

tried +mega@example.com?

I had the same issue as OP and tried this. The site did not accept it as a valid e-mail address.

Re:Teething Problems (5, Funny)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about 2 years ago | (#42643537)

Send an e-mail for password recovery: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Humiliation Galore! Or, honeypot projects pwn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643187)

Curious bees stand as tall soldiers, behind the honeycomb.

Partyvan!

So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643193)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643205)

Moore's law and of course trillion dollar coins minted to pay for Obama-care and MPAA execs massive dragon dildo collections.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (4, Insightful)

seyyah (986027) | about 2 years ago | (#42643303)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

1. Not every user is using 50gb.
2. He has lots of money.
3. He is investing in a new enterprise and knows that he has to spend money first in order to make money in the future.

I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643539)

I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

I'm thinking all those elves that are unemployed now that Christmas is over are working hard for Mr Kim.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643833)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

1. Not every user is using 50gb.
2. He has lots of money.
3. He is investing in a new enterprise and knows that he has to spend money first in order to make money in the future.

I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

I'm sure he has somebody else's American Express Black Card ..

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#42643969)

What's your theory, by the way?

MPAA/RIAA/DOJ honeypot?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

beckett (27524) | about 2 years ago | (#42644075)

What's your theory, by the way?

MPAA/RIAA/DOJ honeypot?

great, glad they're preoccupied with something other than sniffing my packet.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643313)

For some reason, in the case of Facebook, people go crazy over privacy issues. But here it's OK for them to sell your data.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (3, Informative)

Trilkin (2042026) | about 2 years ago | (#42643811)

Your encrypted data, you mean? I don't mind them selling my encrypted data, honestly. Would take more time to unencrypt it than it's really worth and they'd just lose money. Renting out those botnets DOES cost something and it'll take them a while to break AES128.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643345)

1 million users using 50 gigabytes, replicated once, is only about 8 million euros per year at the rates they pay for servers and connectivity (72 tb + gigabit = 500/server)

but you know they ain't launching with 50 gigabytes x 2 (each file is duplicated at least once) in reserve for each sign-up... probably more like 10-20 servers spread out with capacity added as needed.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643395)

Advertising.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

knight24k (1115643) | about 2 years ago | (#42643413)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

Depending on the backend SAN he has, you can use thin-provisioning since there will not be a demand from all users for the entirety of their storage immediately. He can install 50 or so TB, provision that out then add the rest as needed, when needed. The user will see 50gb available but until they actually upload a certain percentage of that they don't actually have that amount of storage. Since the vast majority won't be uploading that in the near term he can do this until there is a demand for it.

Even adding in duplication for backups that only means 100TB. 100TB SAN is not that expensive actually. Since this is storage and not active access you can load it up with inexpensive 1TB SATA disks vs FC.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#42643505)

Depending on the backend SAN he has, you can use thin-provisioning since there will not be a demand from all users for the entirety of their storage immediately.

He also doesn't need thin provisioning, to have a file system smaller than the capacity promises.

It's very possible also, the storage organization is not just your files uploaded stored on a filesystem verbatim.

Your files, might, for example be divided into 4K or 8K chunks.

And each 'chunk' instead of each file, might be persisted to a file on a filesystem/volume somewhere, with a "chunk ID" based on a crypto hash of that chunk, placed in a directory based on its ID; different pieces might be on different volumes as required.

There may be a database table indicating what files you have on your account, and what "chunk IDs" in what order belong to the files you uploaded.

Chunks might be identified by checksums, so if you have two users with a very similar file, or a very similar 1K, 2K, 4K, or 8K block. The different users' files will share the exact same "chunks".

Instead of having to store the same exact chunk multiple times.... then you increase an "in use" counter on the chunk, and have records from both separate user accounts pointing to the same "chunk"

The result is... you could upload 50GB of data, but use zero, or very close to zero extra space on the server --- as long as all the files you uploaded, are identical or 99% the same as some file uploaded by a different user of the service.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (3, Informative)

Zapotek (1032314) | about 2 years ago | (#42643649)

This would work if the files weren't encrypted.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643907)

It doesn't matter if the files are encrypted or not. Like many people you likely think that an encrypted file, a text file, a JPEG file or any other type of file must be handled in distinct ways by the file system. The are all just strings of bits and the file system local or remote just stores them as such. The applications using the files treat them differently but that's not at the file system level.

Even if the files are encrypted and with different keys, the file system at Mega can still look for identical blocks and store them as a single block with a higher usage count and indices to it. Given that they are encrypted and with different keys the system may find fewer identical block but it's not impossible, particularly if you use a smaller block size. There are fewer bit patterns available in a 2K block than in an 8K block.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643691)

I was thinking about this and at first I figured this was exactly what was being done but considering all your files are encrypted with your own key would that makes this approach impossible? I suppose if they just treat a bit pattern of N size as a 'chunk' it would be possible but computationally expensive as the data pool grows??

Perhaps they do some hashing of the file on the client before uploading and then search for a match to avoid uploading and storing the same data? Would this be a security issue though? Could the fact that a hash matches another hash be used as evidence a user has the same file as another user?

Would be interested to see some infrastructure details on their setup.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

seyyah (986027) | about 2 years ago | (#42643771)

Perhaps they do some hashing of the file on the client before uploading and then search for a match to avoid uploading and storing the same data? Would this be a security issue though?

Hashing the files before you encrypt them would give you ... the hash of the unencrypted files. How is that going to help store two encrypted files?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

gringer (252588) | about 2 years ago | (#42644087)

Deduplication can be done perfectly well on a file level even for encrypted files. If this is anything like PGP [wikipedia.org] , you could do it by having multiple encrypted messages attached to the encrypted file (or linked to the file), one for each person with access to the file. Each message contains the same [unencrypted] data — a decryption key for the file — but can only be decrypted by the person who the message is for.

In a well-secured system, all these [small] decryption messages would be stored in a random order in the same place, so you attempt to decrypt all these messages with your personal key in order to retrieve the decryption key for the file. That way, even if you have access to the decryption messages, you can't tell if any particular person will be able to decrypt that file without knowing their decryption key. A more reasonable compromise (faster, a bit less secure / deniable) would be for each person to have their own decryption key store, which is queried whenever they want a particular file.

As long as the file encryption is done on the client side (in the same way by all clients), the server can do deduplication without having any idea what the file contains.

Presumably Mega has the encrypted hashes (or not, it doesn't really matter), which are useless for accessing the contents of the file without access to the keys that are used to decrypt and extract the file hashes. Mega does not need to store these user keys on the server, so they probably don't.

However, Mega should be able to identify files stored on their server if they have access to the original files. Consider if a Mega has access to a file called 'The_HoBBiT_Crazy_Delta_XxXDVDRip_firsTPost.avi' (e.g. they were provided the file by some company who wanted to check for compliance with licensing). They use the Mega client system to encrypt that file, producing an encrypted file and a file decryption key. They then check to see if any files on the server have an exact match to that encrypted file (e.g. first by hash, then by comparing length, then by an exact comparison of the encrypted bytes). It would then be possible to delete the file, check to see who has uploaded this particular file, and produce a list of people who also have access to that file.

[mostly copied from my response(s) elsewhere]

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (3, Insightful)

knight24k (1115643) | about 2 years ago | (#42643775)

That is called deduplication and most modern SAN systems have this feature. You can have both thin-provisioning and deduplication for increased savings. In Mr. Dotcoms business model I doubt he will get many exact duplicate files, but that really doesn't matter because you can still deduplicate similar binary strings within differing binary files or as you said duplicate blocks. In any case dedupe and thin-prov are not mutually exclusive, you can do both.

Normally dedupe is more efficient for backups or when used on the disk target for a virtual environment since you only need one copy of notepad.exe if you are hosting 200+ windows servers. The same applies to unchanging files in *nix systems. The thing is you *have* to have some way to "present" the 50GB of promised space. While you may use dedupe or any other method to reduce your storage footprint the end user wants to see that storage. You either have to present that space raw, which comitts it from the SAN or as a thin-provisioned LUN with only the bare minimum of space actually reserved. How you store those files after the fact is up to you as the hosting company, but if you promise 50GB of space the user will want to see that space available.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#42644173)

That is called deduplication and most modern SAN systems have this feature. You can have both thin-provisioning and deduplication for increased savings.

It's true that SANs have deduplication functions, but there are a few problems with SAN deduplication -- the main one, is this typically operates on a 'volume', LUN, or disk level. A SAN can't deduplicate data stored across storage systems, so there are scalability limits.

That is this doesn't scale very well to large numbers of volumes, with intentional duplicates for performance... and when you need to make backups of the filesystem, there is a tendency of the backup or replication target to Re-Duplicate the deduplicated data.

An application that actually implements this functionality can achieve far better characteristics than a SAN is capable of, because the application would be aware of consumers of the data, and logical pairings.

And at lower cost, by using non-specialized storage hardware

There are perhaps 2 SAN vendors out there with a scalable dedup option, and they are both very expensive per GB of storage options that would not be a very tenable thing to base a free service off of.

That is, the dedupping SAN vendors charge 10 to 20x as much per disk drive of a given capacity, than you can buy off the street, and claim efficiency, lower cost, lower power consumption because dedup means you get twice as much storage.

(E.g. SANs are expensive, and the storage vendors want to reap profit advantages by selling dedupped storage, for more, as well... which can be as much increase in cost as dedup supposedly saves)

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#42643785)

Chunks might be identified by checksums, so if you have two users with a very similar file, or a very similar 1K, 2K, 4K, or 8K block. The different users' files will share the exact same "chunks".

Instead of having to store the same exact chunk multiple times.... then you increase an "in use" counter on the chunk, and have records from both separate user accounts pointing to the same "chunk"

That is a good description of data compression - see LZW, for example [wikipedia.org] . Unfortunately, encrypted data can't be compressed. Any sufficiently strong encryption algorithm produces a bitstream which is virtually indistinguishable from random. For any given size dataset, random data does not repeat in sufficiently long sequences to achieve useful compression relative to the dataset size.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#42644115)

That is a good description of data compression

It's not exactly the same as compression, because compression is a bit more of a flexible concept. Data compression can leverage some similar concepts. In fact, if they divide files into 4K blocks, they can choose to compress separate blocks they store, as well, or make a decision to compress or not, based on the ratio of size reduction.

Any sufficiently strong encryption algorithm produces a bitstream which is virtually indistinguishable from random.

This is true, but it would be unusual for someone to include large encrypted files, as encryption is inconvenient and difficult for the end user as well to work with at well -- normally there would be no reason to encrypt media, software, that other users would have in common.

This method could still be useful on DRM encrypted materials such as eBooks or DVDs, since multiple people would have the _same_ ciphertext.

I'm not sure of what their service policies are -- it might very well be a violation of their policies to upload large encrypted files, in which case, they could recover space from unexpected resource hoggers dedup doesn't work on, by terminating the offending accounts of people uploading encrypted blobs.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#42644073)

Maybe if 99% of your data consists of copies of copyrighted CDs and DVDs it might be pretty efficient. And saleable. And going to get him back in jail.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#42643567)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

It is accomplished as follows and in this order:

- Thin provisioning
- Data dedupe
- Data compression

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643667)

This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

It is accomplished as follows and in this order:

- Thin provisioning
- Data dedupe
- Data compression

Yeah, because data de-duplication on files encrypted with different keys is clearly a big win ...

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

grumbel (592662) | about 2 years ago | (#42643769)

Mega encrypts files using the hash of the content as encryption key, this allows them to have dedup without knowing how to decrypt the files.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#42643787)

How does Mega decrypt without knowing the hash?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | about 2 years ago | (#42643819)

It doesn't. Decryption is done client-side.

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643825)

In their developers guide they state the encryption is done using a hash on the users password. What source do you have for the claim that they use the hash of the content?

Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643795)

Well Data dedupe will not work if the content is encrypted with personal keys. So this does increase the "cost" of service and storage space required. However, I suppose unique data uploads which create 99% of the traffic will be uploaded by a few hundred individuals. Those who already do this for tv shows and movies. DMCA notices will not be able to remove all duplicates unless they get all the uploads. This is the advantage mega enjoys over rival storage cloud clones. It will be difficult for other hosts to ignore this. They might offer this feature in premium and make it available in us as well.

Unreliable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643199)

Wouldn't recommend. Can't connect to web site. Haven't received email when trying to sign up.

Even Blizzard did a better job of taking initial load with Diablo 3.

to knock Mega offline ... (1)

sdnoob (917382) | about 2 years ago | (#42643215)

while the feds tap in.

So many fools (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643219)

Would anyone who cared about the availability or confidentiality of their stuff have anything at all to do with these people? Everything on those servers is going to vanish in a puff of legal entanglements.

Still pretty slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643227)

I signed up yesterday, but I have yet to complete uploading anything due to the traffic on the site. Hopefully in a few days after things die down it will be useable. I plan on using it as a secondary cloud backup for songs I have written (and which I own the copyright).

why is this surprising or interesting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643283)

Offering free 50GB isn't a useful business model or at all surprising that lots of people would sign to to try to get something for nothing.

I bet if he advertised a free steak and a blow job he'd get 2 million users in 24 hours (well, as long as he wasn't promising to fulfill that promise personally...)

Re:why is this surprising or interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643403)

I bet if he advertised a free steak and a blow job he'd get 2 million users in 24 hours (well, as long as he wasn't promising to fulfill that promise personally...)

That's the difference between the free and premium account :)
With a premium account your blowjob handler will be chosen based on _your_ preference.

Re:why is this surprising or interesting? (1)

daniel23 (605413) | about 2 years ago | (#42643681)

At least, even with the free account the blow job is guaranteed.
The only matter left in the dark is who's to give and who's to take...

So nice to see (0)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | about 2 years ago | (#42643385)

So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

Dumasses are where you find them (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#42643467)

So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.

Re:Dumasses are where you find them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643659)

It was the javascript part. Is that related to Java? Not that that is a problem because I have it installed on all my browsers.

(sorry I couldn't help myself)

Re:Dumasses are where you find them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643717)

What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

The "client side" javascript encryption really isn't safe. Even if the javascript is delivered via SSL, the fact is that you are loading a copy of the encryption program from the server each time you execute it. That's not safe, because the server can, at any time, change the program from under you and expose your data. That's no different from just letting them have your unencrypted data and hoping they'll keep it safe.

Re:Dumasses are where you find them (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#42644019)

So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.

I don't understand why people would think they will have access to their data when the government takes new servers down in a midnight raid.

Re:So nice to see (1)

uutf (2432816) | about 2 years ago | (#42643503)

So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

Because other hosts are so trustworthy?

Re:So nice to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643637)

Mod up! Egg Zactly!

Re:So nice to see (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#42643607)

So nice to see dumbasses believing that everyone who signs for 50 GB free online storage is a dumbass.

Re:So nice to see (1)

daniel23 (605413) | about 2 years ago | (#42643781)

Kim Dotcom nee Schmitz has a colourful vita, to say the least.
But he isn't stupid.
And, things being as they are, he is highly motivated to keep hollywood and the spooks out.
He still has enough money to live in his sort of style and do nothing. Starting a new venture like mega.co.nz is his personal vendetta.
So, keeping their interests and motivations in view, Kim doesn't look that bad right now.

review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643533)

it made a key never gave it to me
then i cant upload files
seems like a useless thing
anyways have a nice day that was a perfectly good waste a time

Spotty availability (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | about 2 years ago | (#42643589)

"Demand was great enough to knock Mega offline for a number of users attempting to either connect up or sign up for new accounts, and Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

Just wait until Slashdotters start waking up around the World. That should take care of both spotty and availability.

Kim versus Google (3, Informative)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 2 years ago | (#42643713)

I'm pretty sure everyone loves to hate the RIAA/MPAA so Kim Dotcom had little trouble rounding up support when they moved to shut down MegaUpload.

Unfortunately, he's now picking a fight with bigger opponent [stuff.co.nz] and possible a mass of small website owners who rely on their Adsense revenues to help pay the bills.

Kicking the RIAA/MPAA for their sins is one thing, taking money out of the mouths of independent content creators (by hijacking their ad-revenues to fund his Mega-services) is something altogether different.

I admire KD for what he's doing with the MegaKey service but I really wonder if he's got an oar out of the water in picking a fight with Google and the many websites who rely on that company's ad-revenue sharing.

BTW: I'm one of those sites and I'll be mighty pissed if Kim starts replacing the ads on *my* webpages that should be generating money to pay for *my* efforts -- because I have *nothing* to do with MegaKey so why should *I* be paying for it?

Re:Kim versus Google (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643813)

He won't be showing ads on your pages. You don't even have pages. You just have HTML that my browser fetches from your server. My browser will show his ads, which I chose to see.

Are you pissed at me when I walk to the fridge during the commercials on TV? Is someone suing Coca Cola for luring me to it?

Here's a hint: if you don't want your ads filtered, be it by Mega or anyone else, integrate them into your content. That's right, serve them from your own server and give them filenames that don't scream "ad". We'll both be happier - you because I see your ads, me because you're not trying to shove Google's tracking down my throat.

Re:Kim versus Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42643991)

taking money out of the mouths of independent content creators

I wasn't aware that he was taking any money from anyone. Not making money != losing money that you have.

(by hijacking their ad-revenues to fund his Mega-services)

They're not hijacking any ad-revenue.

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Kim versus Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42644147)

google makes how many millions of dollars off serving ads on copyrighted material on youtube? seems like they just don't like competition!

Sheesh! Talk about asking for trouble. (1, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#42644011)

Look what happened to data of the last people who trusted him for cloud storage.

That's the way the Vietcong did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42644055)

Brill: In guerrilla warfare, you try to use your weaknesses as strengths.
Robert Clayton Dean: Such as?
Brill: Well, if they're big and you're small, then you're mobile and they're slow. You're hidden and they're exposed. You only fight battles you know you can win. That's the way the Vietcong did it. You capture their weapons and you use them against them the next time.

$10 says within 6-18 months, there will be a story here about a certain dot com being a 'sting' all along.

Tick tock...

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42644229)

according to google if you type in kims new domain name

mega.co.nz
you will get
About 1,150,000,000 results (0.22 seconds)

this service will never get up cause of that

Not quite the perfect storm for web storage... (5, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 years ago | (#42644307)

Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

So it's only partly Cloudy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?