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?
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?
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
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)
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
"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
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
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?" `":" #");}
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.