Slashdot Mirror
Decentralizing Bittorrent
An anonymous reader writes "Exeem is a new file-sharing application being developed by the folks at SuprNova.org. Exeem is a decentralized BitTorrent network that basically makes everyone a Tracker. Individuals will share Torrents, and seed shared files to the network. At this time, details and the full potential of this project are being kept very quiet. However it appears this P2P application will completely replace SuprNova.org; no more web mirrors, no more bottle necks and no more slow downs. Exeem will marry the best features of a decentralized network, the easy searchability of an indexing server and the swarming powers of the BitTorrent network into one program. Currently, the network is in beta testing and already has 5,000 users (the beta testing is closed.) Once this program goes public, its potential is enormous. "
Publishing a torrent is incredibly easy, drag the folder in, pick a category, click go. It hashes it and it starts seeding within seconds.
It still (obviously) needs some work doing to the app to make it more friendly but it's shaping up well.
Get paid to search..It's geniune and
Because, theory goes, finding one person with that file finds everyone with that file, and furthermore you get the organized anti-leeching distribution advantage of bit torrent. You can think of it this way. Bit torrent works well, right? This is just a different way of finding torrents.
I am the legal owner of many files. Redistibuting copies of those files without the copyright holders permission is the violation.
People often refer to file sharing as piracy, theft and stealing. It is none of these. It is the distibution of a copy or copies of a copyrighted work that you do not have the permission from the copyright holder to redistribute. Nothing more, nothing less.
What everyone seems to be confusing is that the website that lists the torrents that you download is not necessarily the tracker. The tracker keeps track of who is involved in the swarm, not any kind of search/indexing of torrents.
Hopefully this doesn't make the same assumption that most people do. I'm not involved in the beta, so I don't know.
Give me a decentralized tracker. Don't give me a search function.
amen to that brother,
.02
I remember in the glory days of Napster, when it was the only player in town, you could find damn near any mp3/album you wanted. Now with so many different apps and networks out there, I find it much more hit or miss. And i don't think it has anything to do with the RIAA crackdown. The files are still out there, just spread out across a bunch of different networks. I use Shareaza, and have decent luck cause it hits a few different networks, but nothing like Napster from 2000-2001.
just my
jeff
I gave freenet a try for well over a week constantly on and in the end it was still basically useless. It was about 10x slower than a modem. It is a great idea but from my experience it just doesn't work.
Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
No, it isn't. What is trivial with eDonkey is to get a modified client that doesn't have this restriction. Solving this problem requires reporting the amount of uploading being done to some kind of server.
I don't agree with the all-in-one idea. It seems to me the problem would be better solved in a more modular way.
(1) having a search that only indexes trackers, and can then launch an external app of your choice to do the torrent download
(2) improving the bittorrent protocol so anybody with a seed can failover as the tracker
When I want to download torrents, I want to use Azureus, regardless of whether it was a P2P searched torrent or one off a website. I don't want to have to use some all-in-one app that decides for me the One True Way that downloads shall be handled, merely because it implemented the search to find them.
No, it isn't. What is trivial with eDonkey is to get a modified client that doesn't have this restriction. Solving this problem requires reporting the amount of uploading being done to some kind of server.
No, it doesn't require that. Basically, you just have all connections be 2-way. The key issue here is that you are all looking for the same file.
If client B wants to connect to client A and download some pieces, client A can decide on whether or not to allow this based on which pieces B can provide that A is missing.
If the connection is not mutually beneficial to both parties, one side closes it.
Combine this with a "generosity" setting, where some people sharing the file give away pieces for free, (and by default, when you finish a download you turn into "super-generous" mode until the transfer utility is closed), and the system will work fine, without any sort of central monitoring.
Basically, everyone is "trading" pieces of the download, and automatically discovering "local" peers which have uncongested links with each other.
It's out there: BitTorrent over Tor.
it is the ISP's network, and by using it and paying for their services you agree to their rules, and if their rules say "we may suspend your access at our slightest whim[...]", they can. This is not the court system we are dealing with, this is free enterprise
"Free enterprise"? You try setting up your own last mile, and see how much municipal red tape you run into. Then reconsider whether ISPs are a "free enterprise" in any relevant way to competition.
and is little different than me refusing to personally associate with anyone under 5'0"
There exist anti-discrimination statutes, and if a jurisdiction recognizes being a Little Person as having a disability, then your business may be in trouble.
Sounds alot like Waste
...take the milk from the refirgerator, and walk out without paying.
Why do you insist on using anologies that simply don't apply? This is why I call you people copyright drones. You have no logic to back up your argument, so you use old theories that have been proven false. Yet you continue to use them. It doesn't help your cause in any way. Copyright is as depicable as trickle down economics. In fact they are the same. Let a guy make millions at public expense, and maybe, just maybe he might leave a few more crumbs on the floor for the rest of us. It's a horrible concept. Under this system, the only motivation to create anything is money, little more. Under this system, people create useless stuff, and then they're spamming us at dinner time ringing my damn phone telling me "Buy my shit! C'mon godammit, buy it! If you don't buy it you're a damn thief! Buy! Buy! Buy!" It's because of IP that we have so much crap on the store shelves. Junk is being invented simply because you can find a sucker that will buy it.
What?
Shadowmaster you may be interested in this
http://sourceforge.net/projects/antsp2p/
Anonymity is the main object of some new "next generation" P2P networks like ants and mule unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to achieve anonymity without a considerable performance penalty.
Two key pairs is generated for each bi-directional peer connection, one for each direction.
Your local machine generates keys for key pair A, the secret key resides localy on your peer and the public key is sent to the remote peer.
Remote peer does the same, it generates key pair B and sends its public key to you.
As a beta tester for exeem.
This news is way premature.
Exeem wont be out of beta for a year given how its going so far.
And by then we'll have something better.
The penalty for sneaking into a ballgame is being thrown out, maybe being blacklisted. The penalty for getting caught with mp3s is having to settle for a $10,000 fine. The value of the ballgame is higher than the value of at least a couple of albums monetarily, and it's infinitely more valuable than any number of mp3s in the sense that the ballgame occurs only once. Is it just me or is there a certain level of disparity here?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"