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."
Will this eventually leave the BSA and others with no BT tracker sites to shut down, so that their only option will be to go after end users or to DOS the P2P networks themselves?
What, exactly, does this mean for the state of legal and illegal torrents? How long would this take to fully implement?
See you in Guantanamo, "Bram".
Towards the Singularity.
I hate it when I squeeze harder and things start to slip through my fingers.
Is it just a coincidence that this enhancement has come the day before the new Star Wars movie?
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 know how bit torrent works - how does trackerless bit torrent work? Don't you still need a starting point?
-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?
How does this work... how do you find peers to download from? Are they included in the .torrent file? IF so ain't that a big risk... if MPAA start collection peers informations? I guess it's encrypted but it can always be broken.. anyways if anyone have more info on how it actually works please inform me :P
I'm really glad to see this coming in the mainstream BitTorrent client. At the moment it can be hard to use the distributed tracking system because of its dependence on Azureus as a client. A lot of people have been making noise about this, and hopefully now that its in the main client, the developers of the other BitTorrent clients will make implementing support for this more of a priority.
Business Voyeur
...what happened to btefnet et al? I mean the MPAA could still shut the site down b/c they were hosting the torrent file right?
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
Go Ahead, mod me redundunt.
"This distributed tracker is an Azureus only feature."
So if other clients are working on other ways of distributed tracking, wouldn't this mean bittorrent would be different for every client and there would not be one "bittorrent" that worked with everything?
"While it is called trackerless, in practice it makes every client a lightweight tracker. A clever protocol, based on a Kademlia distributed hash table or "DHT", allows clients to efficiently store and retrieve contact information for peers in a torrent."
The only thing I'm interested in is: what performance increase or benefit will this bring for the average legitimate user of BT (ie. Linux distro's etc)?
Linux Resources
Bittorrent is now another step closer to becoming just another eMule clone.
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?
There's an A-end and a B-end seperated by some amount of time. Say 1 minute. At the A-end, you start your search for the torrent. The search continues for 60 seconds until the torrent is found at the B-end. The torrent data is then loaded at the B-end which is picked back up at the A-end 60 seconds prior. From your perspective, it happens instantly.
The searches are also modular in design. So you can actually include a second search at the B-end. So at the A-end, you might actually get back a second result for something you didn't even know you searched for.
Don't worry about the noise in the attic. It's just birds.
Plenty of geeks with big pipes to host trackers for linux releases...
But lets say your band releases an album online, or your movie club makes a film... You've only got a geocities website and the desktops of your members.. With tracker-based BT you had to talk someone into running a tracker for you... With tracker-less that limitation has been removed.
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)
Instead of posting to a tracker, you post your .torrent to a forum via free webspace.
It's the same basic method, just now the actually torrent mechanicans are now on the peer instead of the server.
Went to download an upgrade bittorrent.
I was a bit surprised that the download for the upgrade didn't have a bittorrent option. Isn't that ironic? or did I miss the link on bittorrent.com?
The entire point of BT is to make it so that you can (as long as there are seeders) download something without the server getting swamped. Since all torrents have to have a tracker, everyone downloading has to contact that tracker. If you get a popular enough torrent you can easily kill a tracker just like any other server. Going to a trackerless setup eliminates one of the few bottlenecks in the BT setup.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
See you in Guantanamo, "Bram".
Didn't you get the joke, mods?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
Power to the Peaceful
is the publisher traceable? like is the ip address in the .torrent, cause that might be a bit of a giveaway.
not sure how it'd work otherwise, but this gives each torrent a single responsible party for its uploading. on the plus side they could limit who has access to the download client tables to people who need it and upload valid.
curious, and no im not just using it for legitimate torrents, but i pay for my cable and id rather keep stuff on my file server than a tivo with a crappy interface.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Anyone confused by the parent should realize it's an allusion to Primer.
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade.
Actually,
It's kinda handy if the tracker goes down. Additionally, if you don't want your torrent to operate in this distributed fashion you flag the torrent to not operate in distributed mode.
It's more like a hydra in this fashion...
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
The only good reason for trackerless torrents is to prevent the **AA from shutting down infringing filesharing. I am a fair-use advocate, but I don't see the legitimate purpose to trackerless torrents that cannot be fulfilled by trackered torrents.
Um, now people with shared hosting, blog sites, and free or included web space with their ISP or Yahoo Geocities / Angelfire / etc. (or otherwise are unable to set up a tracker) can now publish videos and other large files with bittorrent without trashing their TOS limits. Sounds legitimate to me. How many of these types of sites has Slashdot shut down by pointing to them?
"I hate it when I squeeze harder and things start to slip through my fingers."
Let's leave your sex life out of this.
This doesn't seem to accomplish much in the way of providing anonymity if everyone in the swarm still had to go through the same starting node somewhere.
.torrent file without having to connect to a tracker (which you may not hae access to).
.torrent without needing a tracker.
I don't think the idea was to make an anonymous torrent; I think it was to make it easier for bloggers and websire owners to post a
Joe Six Pack wih webhosting can now post a
That would be much more useful... if each socket connection does a key exchange. Much harder for your ISP to snoop.
This work will hopefully cause anonymous p2p filesharing to become widespread. This will, in turn, render music companies obsolete.
Less lobbying, less facist laws and less greed notwithstanding, this also helps in the big picture by promoting and strengthing open source software development in general. This has many benefits, some we've seen, and some we have yet to realize.
These people may not be working in the front lines, they're still contributing.
A lot of coders I know never had a college education, nor any friends with similiar mindsets. Projects like this help adolecents chose a path for the first part of their lives. It can be argued that potential coders who _don't_ find projects like these never get into programming. Some of these people may work themselves back into blue collar status, where some can start the cycle of not being able to read/eat/work all over again.
Someone should write an extention for Firefox that gives the download manager bit torrent support. Combined with trackerless torrents, it's likely a lot more sites will start using torrents.
I am a fair-use advocate, but I don't see the legitimate purpose to trackerless torrents that cannot be fulfilled by trackered torrents.
**AA are not the only enemies of free filesharing. That's a very US-centric view of the 'net. What about propagating samizdat literature und news within dictatorships? A trackerless torrent could help save some lifes. Even if it saves only one life, would be well worth it!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Then rather shortsighted you are. If I take a home video and want to share it with my friends and family, previously I would have had to upload it somewhere and spend money on web hosting. Now, with trackerless BT I can easily share this file without having to worry about web hosting or running a tracker. I just have to email the torrent file to people and run a BT client on my machine.
Legitimate file sharing doesn't only include large organisations "sharing" files with their customers/users. There's a whole other side to it as well that you've most conveniently forgotten about in your rush to share your misplaced sarcasm with the world.
It's the classic question. How do you make "make"? How do you untar "tar"? How do you decompress "gzip"? How do you compile "gcc"?
.Z and non-compressed forms, as well as a shar file. tar is distributed as a shar file. etc. etc. etc.
...
The answer in all cases is to work around the problem by not storing the code in the format it supports. eg: make comes with a shell script to build the binary. gzip is distributed in
BitTorrent isn't all that large, so there isn't much to be gained by distributing it that way. It's best at file packages in the multi-hundred megabyte and larger range. The largest BT download is only around 1 MB
I just learned about Distributed Hash Tables this past semester and thought they were really cool. On the bittorrent page linked in the blurb, it mentions the use of a DHT in order to do the join/lookup required for locating peers.
l e for more info on them and links to example DHT implementations (such as CAN, Chord, and Kademlia).
If you are interested in how it works, you can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_tab
OTOH, the lack of centralized control means that trackerless BT will likely be vulnerable to a new class of attacks that could make it possible to disrupt the download of a file you don't like. So, ironically, warez groups might stick to running trackers for attack resistance and Linux providers might move to trackerless for the scalability. It all depends on how scalable and attack-resistant trackerless downloads turn out to be.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
BitTornado is just a client, that uses the underlying technology of BitTorrent, created by Bram Cohen. ABC, BitTornado, Azureus, etc.. are all clients that use the BT technology.
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."
A much more interesting but similar system is the dijjer project at dijjer.org.
Like this it's a distributed publishing system without any sort of tracker, but without torrent files either. In dijjer you make requests from your web browser through a proxy server that's your interface to the rest of the system.
It's different in that all of the data being distributed exists in a single system, not in grouped systems of people interested in the same file. Therefore there's a lot less concern about there being too few peers signed on to make the system work.
Trackerless torrents are less vulnerable to denial of service attacks and that's enough of a merit to warrant their development and use. What I'd like to know is what is the difference between WinMX and BT with trackerless torrents? P.S. That should be *AA or ??AA. Where did you learn your globbing techniques sonny?
People have lives OTHER than charity, as your presence here proves. As for this being less than honorable, that's the eye of the beholder. It's like the VCR, guns, or deep fryers. They can all be used for good or for evil. Just because they can be used for evil doesn't obviate they're good potential, nor should we ban them because of their potential for abuse.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
This is how Kademlia works:
.torrent file has a 160-bit info hash embedded in it, derived from SHA-1. Now substitute the message above for the .torrent file, and the message key for this info hash -- you are now routing .torrent files to their closest nodes. These nodes, in turn, can be the tracker. If a node knows the 160-bit info hash of a .torrent, it can find a tracker by placing this hash as the message key in a lookup message and finding the closest node, which must necessarily be the tracker.
Nodes randomly generate either 128 or 160 bit node identifiers. An identifier uniquely identifies a node on the network. Traditionally, they are computed as just the MD5 or SHA-1 hash of your IP address (this is to make it harder for clients to select exactly what identifier they want, which could help them target certain files for takedown... more on that later).
In Kademlia, the idea is that messages routed through the network are identified by a message key. This is, as well, either a 128 or 160 bit value. The goal of Kademlia, and every other DHT (Google for Chord, CAN, Pastry, etc.) is to route a message to the node whose identifier is "closest" to the message key. In Kademlia, the distance between a node identifier and another node identifier, or a node identifier and a message key, is computed by simply XORing the two and treating the result as an unsigned integer.
Each node maintains (roughly) a routing table containing nodes that match successively-longer high order bits with itself. For example, node 0100... maintains an entry to a node starting with 1..., a node starting with 00..., a node starting with 011..., and a node starting with 0101... Note that in terms of distance by XOR, the first node has a distance of 1..., the second with a distance of 01..., and so forth. Thus, nodes matching more high order bits are closer to you in the identifier space.
So if you are node 1010... and you receive a message starting with 0111... You should have some node in your routing table that differs in the highest-order bit, that is, it starts with 0... Say its node identifier starts with 0000. You route the message to that node. If you compute the XOR between your node identifier and the key, and this node's identifier and the key, you will see that this node is approximately twice as close to the key as you are.
Now this node differs in the second bit: 0000 vs 0111. In its routing table, it must have some node that matches in the first bit, and differs in the second: that is, starting with 01... If the message is routed to that node, we again cut our distance to the key by approximately 1/2. This process repeats until we find the node "closest" to the message key.
Routing in this manner takes log(N) time, and each node on the network maintains log(N) connectivity. Note that there are well-established algorithms for nodes joining and leaving the network, of which the former takes log(N) time as well.
So how does BitTorrent fit in? Here's what I'm assuming: Each
You can do other neat tricks, too, like keyword searching, load balancing, and whatnot (see eMule -- it uses the Kademlia DHT for its serverless system). Other DHTs work in a similar manner. I'm a little confused as to why everyone uses Kademlia, when there are better ones out there. (Accordian, for example, is truly state-of-the-art.)
Plenty of resources on DHTs can be found at Project Iris.
- shadowmatter
You would need a bittorrent client to be able to use a torrent so it will be ironic that there would be a torrent.
My hacked site
You're joking, right?
Domain name: BITTORRENT.COM
Administrative Contact:
Cohen, Bram bram@bitconjurer.org
Before it took time, patence and know-how to get a release up and going. Now it's suddenly going to become so easy to distribute stuff with BitTorrent that people will start putting up fake virus/spyware/corrupt files because it won't take any time or knowledge to do so. Releases distributed with BitTorrent has always excelled in their quality when comparred to their P2P (think Kazaa) counterparts. Now BitTorrent will suddenly become as bad as Kazaa, bogus files, destorted music... it was good while it lasted, BitTorrent.
I work at Habitat 40 hours a week, it's my job. I'm also a geek, and love the advance of new tech like this, enabling my friends in small bands and record labels to distribute their stuff without spending tons of cash on webservers and hosting.
What does this mean? How can you not have access to your own machine?
Anyway, YOU STILL HAVE TO RUN A TRACKER. It's just built in to the client instead of being the program right next to it. It does have minor advantages in traffic generated at the original tracker (which is pretty insignificant anyway), and in being able to resume a download after the original tracker dies. However, you can't start a new download after the tracker dies (which is what we really wanted trackerless torrents for) unless someone posts an updated version of the torrent file with peers that are still active.
It's tragic. Laugh.
Not everybody is good at charity; sometimes, someone's better at advancing science (in this case, computer science) than at helping the poor through traditional means.
Bittorrent is a brilliant system, and the fact that it's not saving any starving children's lives at this very moment does not mean that it's not a worthwhile thing. If we all concentrated, as you suggest, on charity all of the time, science would become stagnant, and we'd be in a far worse condition than we are now.
I don't know why I'm responding to this; the parent is obviously a troll, but just in case it's at all serious, I may as well reply anyway now that I've gotten this typed up.
The new Bittorrent protocol was designed by the same developers who designed the original TCP/IP protocol in the 70s. But this new protocol has a decidedly "edgy" feel to it. Below is the "handshaking" procedure. There are a few similarities between it and SMTP:
client1: gimme the warez
client2: who's askin'?
client1: me, mutherfucka
client2: well, your story checks out - here's da shit.
I know what you're thinking - how will they handle flow control? The trackerless developers also thought of that:
client1: the shit's comin' slow - speed it up
client2: get off my back, bitch
client1: don't make me bust a cap in yo' ass!
client2: all aight, all aight... sheee-it.
You would need a bittorrent client to be able to use a torrent so it will be ironic that there would be a torrent.
You're talking about the issue of a first-time installation, while grandparent is talking about an updater. For instance, Azureus and eMule installers are both available through HTTP download for first time users, but Azureus's built-in updater uses BT protocol to distribute the updated jar files, and you can get eMule updates through ed2k protocol as well.
Someone still has to host the .torrents.
Unless a group's .torrent files come out in a weekly zipfile. Then somebody has to host the .torrent of that zipfile (or put it on eMule), but it's likely much smaller and further removed from copyright liability.
Bittorrent's beta release is not really trackerless. Instead it implements a distributed tracker very similar to the one used in Azureus. In fact, both make use of the Kademlia distributed hash table routing algorithm, but both implementations are different just enough to make them incompatible with each other.
This begs the question, why wasn't this beta postponed until its implementation could be made compatible with the already existing distributed tracker implementation in Azureus? Both projects are open source and both are written in high-level programming languages: Python and Java respectively.
Hmm. How does one use a deep fryer for evil? Open a KFC?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I, for one, welcome our new pirate overlords.
G-Force music visualization
It really isn't trackerless. It is distributed tracking, just like Azureus already has, but just different enough to be incompatible with Azureus's protocol. Basically you have a big distributed hash table, so the entry point for a torrent is a hash key for this table.
The *AA can still nail you for being a distributor of unauthorized Copyrighted material if you use Bittorrent. You are of course giving out copies to other users; so all the *AA needs is a list of IP addresses that are in the swarm. Granted, the *AA hasn't really done this. But if there's one thing that they have shown is that they are extremely motivated to find people who are involved, and hit them with a bill for a $2-3K settlement.
With an economic bounty like that, the only thing the Lawyers of the *AA are lacking is a way to automate the technology. From what I hear, that technology is coming. Supposedly some of it is in beta test now.
The only defense one might hope for in the U.S. is a scheme which added plausible deniability. That's not here yet with BT; and even if implemented, would undoubtedly result in a slowdown of downloads.
Personally, I think your best bet if you are concerned is to use an offshore ISP.
It is not clear whether the official BT client works in the same way or whether it is compatible with Azureus.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
anything you make in a deep fryer tastes so good it MUST be evil
You click on the Internet icon on the desktop.
You can also go to Wallmart and ask them if they could put the internet on your floppy disk (warning: you need a floppy disk)
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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.
Considering 99.9% of guns are never used in the commission of a crime, all you have to do is open the blinders on your eyes.
Let's start with hunting, varmit removal, and self-protection. We won't even have to get into just plain fun.
Guns are used for legitimate purposes hundreds, probably even thousands, of times for every time they are used in the commission of a crime. BitTorrent is much closer to the reverse. Probably 5%/95%. Also, plenty of legitimate alternatives for BitTorrent exist. This is not true for guns. In other words, eliminating BT barely affects the ability of legitimate BT users to exercise any rights, while eliminating guns severely restricts the rights of legitimate gun owners.
So that means that it's the other thousandth that kills 11,000 Americans each year. Try as you may, I really don't think that BitTorrent is responsible for that much damage. It's not like BitTorrent goes around and rapes your pets or anything if you use it.
Do you not still have a knife for self-defense? You can go hunting with a bow. Poisons, traps and pheromones work well for varmit removal and are overwhelmingly the preferred method. I have fun playing with Jacks. You don't need to punch holes in something to have fun. Well you might, and if that's the case I have a pneumatic drill you can borrow. But only if you ask nicely.
I'd also would like to know where that %5/95% statistic came from. Because it sounds like a rectal figure. You are forgetting all of the several hundred megabyte Linux ISOs BitTorrent serves. What about Windows SP2? It was available via BitTorrent after the release. Sites with large videos, such as AMV sites, offer torrents. Video Game Speedruns offer torrents more often than not. How about Project Gutenberg?
I think that you should open the blinders from your eyes, stop petting your goddamn gun and lauding the wonders of a fast moving hunk of metal, and rejoin civil society.
I'm not saying you shouldn't own a gun. Just for chrissakes realize that it isn't the be all and end all for the entire world.
And to all the BitTorrent users out there. If you find Fifi behind your computer with a ruptured anus two weeks from now... we never talked.
"Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
Apparently BitTorrent, Azureus and Mainline all use the same protocol.
BitTorrent: Azureus: Mainline/khashmir: Emphasis mine.There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
True anonymous p2p filesharing will never be possible - it is ALWAYS possible to find out who you are downloading from. Accept it.
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
This drives me fucking nuts.
Y is an activity that saves lives, such as buying vaccines. X is a frivolous activity such as buying a DVD. People don't live their lives choosing Y instead of X every time because you end up with no life of your own.
And you only whine about it when X happens to be something that reminds you of the need for Y, or when Y suddenly occurs to you and you want to make a point. But every single time you buy a goddamn DVD, you're choosing X over Y. That's how life works. Every cheap novel you buy is a child who dies because you didn't spend the time to go out, find her, and help her. Come to terms with this before you start tossing it out as a random argument against a given X.
And why does Bittorrent even remind you about the need for charities? I mean, you've got a strange set of connectiosn going. I mean, pointless artwork in Central Park, sure, but why on Earth do you jump on a random technical project like this?
(Score:-1, Flamebait)
Oh, right. Some people. So there's a 50/50 chance you're flamebaiting or that you've just got a weird set of things that trigger thoughts of Y for you. Either way, spend some time thinking about these issues; it'll do you good. Maybe think about the kids dying as you sit there. Think about that each time you speak with righteous indignation about what people should be spending their time on. I'm not even telling you not to say what you're saying. I'm just saying give it some thought.
$10 can buy vaccines to absolutely save someone's life. With what rationale are you buying a DVD with that $10? I know why I do it. Do you?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Yes
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?
True anonymous p2p filesharing will never be possible - it is ALWAYS possible to find out who you are downloading from. Accept it.
I would have thought that is what your zombie window intermediary is for.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Hmm. How does one use a deep fryer for evil? Open a KFC?
Oh what? Like YOU'VE never heard of a deep fried a baby. Sure, sure. All of those KFC and and french-fry lovers like to stand up and say that a ban would be against their best interests, but even they know the primary reason people get deep fryers is for cooking babies.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Just think what could be if all this human effort had been channeled through a charity
Just think of what a difference Mother Teresa could have made if she had gotten an MBA, passed the Series 7 exam, and went to work at a high-powered Wall Street firm.
If she dedicated her life to that job, working tirelessly around the clock at the expense of her personal life and giving up on the opportunity to start a family, she could have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and used some of that money to have a real effect on making the world a better place.
Oh wait, i forgot, it only counts as charity if it's sentimental and photogenic.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Keep trying this link, you never know! http://search.ebay.com/sense-of-irony_W0QQfkrZ1QQf romZR8/
You have just given yourself the answer you were looking for. Freenet makes it *very* difficult to track down the sources of files. If you're downloading music or videos, it is sufficiently anonymous for what you're doing.
But as is pointed out on several sites discussing Freenet, if you're a dissident trying to release information, you could still be in for a whole lot of trouble...
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
"Only monopolies are holding up the prices- but the glut is coming and prices will drop." And the government is holding up the monopolies and the people are too stupid to stop holding up the government.....
- no sig here
(a) "You first. If you eliminate all your activities of which I disapprove, I'll reciprocate."
(b) No one is obligated to give. That's one of the things that freedom means.
(c) I give already in other ways. I have given enough.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Ever seen someone's hand deep fried? Sure, it's not pleasant if it's *your* hand. But it's finger licking good . .
Nathan's blog
True anonymous p2p filesharing will never be possible - it is ALWAYS possible to find out who you are downloading from.
...
Suppose, using some new hypothetical p2p program, my client uses one network, say, Gnutella, to search for a title. Using Gnutella, my client downloads a file of instructions that describes how to reassemble what I want using various numbered blocks. (For example, a block's number might be its SHA-256 hash) Next, my client searches the network, maybe using a completely different network or protocol, for each of the block numbers. The downloaded blocks are labeled with a B, as in B58273838922837389. The reassembled content file, the file I originally searched for, is made up of blocks labeled with a C, as in C1, C2, C3, etc.
So the file I want is reassembled, according to the list of instructions, like this....
C1 = B166 xor B224
C2 = B338 xor B426
C3 = B872 xor B998
C4 =...
C5 =
etc.
(Drawback, I used double, or triple or more, of the bandwidth necessary to download the file.)
So which IP did I get the infringing content from?
Remember, each block could be found using a different mechanism, Gnutella, OpenNap, Http, etc. Each block is just a bunch of random bits, indisginguishable from noise.
Well, the beginning of the file, C1, was created from blocks B166 and B224. (Of course, they would have much longer block numbers.) But block B166 combined with some other block on the network results in part of The Declaration of Indepencance. And block B224 combined with yet another block, results in part of The Bible. So was B166 or B224 infringing?
And which IP address gave me the infringing content?
The gnutella node that gave me the reassembly list didn't give me any actual infringing content, just a bunch of numbers. I suppose that the reassembly list could also have been a file that was recursively shared using the Blocks scheme I describe here. Thus I might have to reassemble something, only to find out that I have reassembled a new reassembly list (as long as I knew up front that this would be the case).
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
You're new to the internet, aren't you?
Furry, ponygirl/boy, gorean slave, take your pick. There are local and global, commercial and community supported forums dedicated just to finding human pets.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I probably should have use a different noun there, but the point still stands.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
But the people dont care.
They want to be hidden as well. Doesnt matter what the 'products' goals is, the 'consumers' want this feature.
Until BT provides this, expect the 'consumers' to continue to complain.
---- Booth was a patriot ----