Slashdot Mirror
Trackerless BitTorrent Beta Posted
jgarzik writes "BitTorrent development is occuring at a furious pace. At the beginning of May, an Azureus update added distributed tracker and database features. Yesterday, Bram updated BitTorrent to include support for trackerless torrents in the new BitTorrent 4.10 beta."
If you lower the cost of entry to producing a BT release, won't that mean more .torrent file swimming around? With the increase of different torrents everywhere, won't that dilute the power of BT?
Is it legal to post only in questions?
More specifically, how can you connect to a torrent download if you don't know where to start? Isn't the starting point the same as a tracker?
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
I wonder what's going to stop **AA from shutting down the login servers. Sure, there might not be trackers to shut down, but a network is no good if nobody can join it. How do you expect to find out who your "peers" are otherwise?
I think we'll see two things:
1) **AA will squirm for a while
2) **AA will work harder than before to moniyor and restrict user rights on the internet, via congressional purchasesing, er, I mean lobbying.
I think #2 will ultimately be futile in that it will not slow their loss of control over media content distribution (and copyright violation) but it will make life unpleasant for many...
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The azureus implementation has support for 'magnet' links, which allow you to simply exchange a small link and download the .torrent file from the other peers directly. Search on keywords 'magnet btih' for examples, though they're not commonly used yet.
This is realy the cat and mouse game at it's best. BitTorrent is getting better each day. While the RIAA and MPAA is closing the hosting website, Attacking ISP from around the globe, etc.
Is this a combat to the death ?
I guess nothing will beat private exchange ? (DRM)
What's needed is some kind of distributed HTTP overnet that works; that can handle dynamic content semi-intelligently, and MUCH faster than freenet/frost sites.
Something like i2p?
Update: it seems bt mainline uses khashmir instead of the azureus protocol. This is a bad thing. If this reaches a release, we'll have a case where two bittorrent clients are truly incompatible, and the result may cause difficulties for the technology itself.
All this work for a less than honorable cause. Just think what could be if all this human effort had been channeled through a charity, say Habitat for Humanity, your local food bank, or teaching someone to read.
Inefficient network use also leads to waste of money - which could be used for charity. And you're forgetting of a fundamental right that all humans must have: Freedom of speech.
There are a lot of people--I can't say whether this is true of the BT developers or not, as I don't know them--who are interested and drawn to projects that have a hint of subversion as well as technical challenge to them. Given the popularity and rate of development of such projects, this seems rather obvious.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
But when this gets ported into bt-i2p things really start to roll.
I am actually hoping somebody will make a plugin so azureus will act as an i2p router and not have to rely on and externally configured app.
Distributed tracking AND total anonymity let the party begin
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
If he's doing things exactly like Azureus, then a torrent file can be retrieved from anyone known via DHT to be part of that swarm... it's called a magnet url.
This is the reason why DHT, as the monkeys released it, is a Bad Thing(tm). They should've err'd on the side of caution and assumed torrents were "private" unless explicitly marked otherwise. Because they added the "private" flag to the info dictionary, sites cannot retroactively privatize their torrents -- it changes the info_hash, which is the exact reason why the monkeys put it there (where it technically doesn't belong.)
I wouldn't touch that with a 50ft pole. My money says that swarm is being monitored for the next round of John Doe lawsuits. (esp. with the recently inacted laws.)
(all you have to do is join the swarm and sit back and log all the IPs reported by the tracker and from all the inbound connections.)
Well, I've done habitat for humanity too.
A week in 96 degree sun building houses for the homeless.
AND I also like BT.
I agree the artists need some money to keep working. I disagree that they won't write or create new art unless they get millions of dollars. I really disagree that the middlemen who do nothing that can't be replaced by BT should get rich. I donate money to artists (via magnatune among others) where I know the artists are actually going to see a majority of the money and I've established that I like the art.
I also try some stuff, don't pay for it, don't bother to delete it but never listen to it again.
There is now more quality songs/art/tv shows/movies than I could watch/listen to if I spent every day from waking to sleeping consuming it. Only monopolies are holding up the prices- but the glut is coming and prices will drop.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I don't know why a trackerless mode was chosen, I thought that the efficiency of BT is due to the centralized tracker. I think it would be better to provide redundancy to the tracker function by adding a super tracker functionality.
.torrent file is the real problem in hosting files. Its not as easy as just providing one directory and every file in that directory gets shared. Ofcourse there are benefits also to the .torrent file when we want to serve a whole directory as a single torrent. An approach where both kinds of things can be done will be better than a single method.
Actually the centrallized tracker is a very important thing. It decides who downloads what. Without the central tracker the effort will not be that synchronized.
I was expecting the development to be towards making the tracker redundant, with creating a super tracker, that would track the tracker.
Also the
Also the Emule has it better that it can determine that multiple names of a file are actually the same file, based on the same Hash.
I would think it would be better to have super trackers track the trackers, with multiple super-trackers tracking the same tracker. And each super tracker would be tracking multiple trackers. Super trackers would provide the search capabilities, and would share tracker information among themselves. They would also provide tracker redundancy. They would also be able to determine if the different file names are in fact the same file, and merge several trackers into one.
I think the peers with good bandwidth and with maximum completed parts would become the tracker. The benefit of being the tracker would be that you get the file faster, because the tracker would obviously give itself the benefit. Then when the tracker has completed its own file. A new tracker would be selected.
What do people here think?