P2P Meets Push

meonkeys writes "What if you could securely subscribe to a trusted P2P file broadcaster? Check out konspire! An interesting concept; implemented in C++ and controllable via a cool Web interface ala Mutella."

Comments

Screw multimedia; how about software?

[Sloppy]

I am not interested in "pushed" multimedia, but imagine having your Gentoo packages already pre-fetched for you, whenever there's an update? Emerge and it just starts compiling w/out the download step. Mmmm...

Re:Argh!

[caluml]

Shameless plug: You'll just have to make sure that you stay anonymous while sharing.

(Any input given would be gratefully received btw)

Merge with bittorrent

[Iakona]

The concept of konspire is really cool. It provides a good method of anonymity of the original sender. Pesonally I'd like to see it use the bittorrent method of file delivery because you have the potential of only having to send the whole file once, plus if konspire decides to send the file to a 28.8k modem user first, everybody else will have to wait until that user gets the file before they can receive it, where as bittorrent's method can send to many people simultaneously and still use less bandwidth. The problem with bittorrent is that you know who sent the original files, because you got the .torrent from them, so a combination of both technologies would rule!

When do we get "useful" P2P?

[bigattichouse]

When does the technology get pervasive enough to start warranting more useful apps built on top of P2P? Like a way to post resumes, jobs, RFPs, etc.. and be able to query/respond... without needing the 400 job boards out there. Or code snippets, or news services that can survive massive overloads ala 9/11?

Not especially...

[Kjella]

So to any given node it is unknown whether the node it's receiving a transmission is the original distributor. But still, the node it is receiving from is a distributor - that's just as illegal, at least in the context of copyright protected works. Especially since in this network, whoever distributes a given file also requested it (at least that's what I am reading out of the documentation), in contrast to other networks, eg. freenet where the fact that you have data on your HD and distribute it to other people does not imply that you requested that data to be there yourself.

...but as a direct consequence of knowing what is in your share, or at least the ability to know that (that is, only the things you're subscribing to). Open relays don't get sued for fraud, 0 day hacked warez servers don't get sued for piracy (arr!) and your DDoS host doesn't get sued for launching DoS attacks because they did not know what was being routed through them.

Freenet is basicly trying to make everyone (except the inserter and the requester, which are difficult to find) be a common carrier (ISPs do caching, so the fact that Freenet caches stuff does not prevent this). Whether that argument will stand up in court is questionable, but this system certainly won't hold up to this defense.

Kjella