Is Rodi BitTorrent's Replacement?

tilleyrw writes "From ZDNet Blogs: 'Rodi is a small-client P2P application, written in Java, that improves on BitTorrent by allowing both content searches and full anonymity. It's released under the General Public License (GNU). Even your IP address can be hidden using Rodi through a process called "bouncing." That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C. Rodi can also be used from behind corporate firewalls and LANs using Network Address Translation (NATs), something most home gateways have.' "

Comments

Illegal content with my IP?

[3770]

So,

Someone can download illegal and immoral content and the server will have a record of my IP?

I don't think so.

Even if it is well known that my IP wasn't the final destination.

Replacement?

[erasmix]

I think Bit Torrent is here to stay. The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.

BitTorrent already fairly strong

[LiquidCoooled]

With Bittorrent, I am actively working on one single file.

This means that the RIAA/MPAA can only ever see that I am sharing one single file.

Compare and contrast with kazaa etc where my entire drive (shared folders) are available.

BT doesn't give anonymity, but it gives limited accountability, they can't prove I was uploading any other files unless they themselves connect to each one of them at the same time I am downloading. Once my client is closed, then bye bye.

The best way for the RIAA to stop P2P...

[amichalo]

...is to embrace on-line distribution - even p2p itself!

Look at how the iTunes Music Store put a dent in on-line music sharing by providing a better shopping experience and keeping the price low enough that people will choose it over p2p.

Now if the RIAA/etc would recognize the benefits of p2p for distribution of large files, they could benefit from companies like Apple and Napster running storefront trackers. The user would purchase the .RIAA/etc_torrent of "Movie ABC" for $X that could only be used by their client software (iTMS, MusicMatch, etc) to download the music video or movie or what have you, then encrypt it. (This is what Apple does with the iTMS and why DVDJon was able to create another client that buys iTMS tracks but doesn't encrypt them.)

The benefits would be an on-line revenue stream, lower costs of network bandwidth because of the torrent, and a way to win favor with the p2p file sharers today.

I don't think so...

[Spy der Mann]

The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.

I'm not sure if Bram Cohen would agree - he made BT to share software, not to pirate music or videos. Adding anonimity to BT is just what the lawyers need to say BT was MADE for copyright infringement.

No. here's what we need:

[Punto]

what we need is a mix between freenet and i2p. This 'bouncing' thing is nice, but it slows down the transfer, because I don't know if the guys between me and the source of the warez have good connections.. It would be nice to have a network like freenet, where everyone holds a random bit of the data on a semi-permanent basis, and to be able to choose the ammount of hops I want to have between me and the people I want to connect to, like on i2p. If I choose to have 0 hops, and the other guy chooses to have 0 hops, we'd be connecting directly, but still we have no way of knowing it (because the other guy could have >0 hops before him). And even if we knew it, we would have plausible deniability; the other guy is just holding a piece of random data, he doesn't know what it is.

This would be the first step in the evolution to anonymous p2p, it's a good compromise, and way better than the current method, where everything is done in plain view. If (or more likely, when) the thought police starts attacking this, _then_ we can move to the fully paranoid networks.

Why anonymity tips the balance too far

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Wanting anonymity doesn't necessarily mean your doing something illegal.

No, it doesn't. But the vast, vast majority of people using a tool like this are doing so because it shields their illegal activities.

Now, as a general principle, I don't like restricting people's behaviour without a very good reason. More specifically, I don't believe in automatically banning things that have legitimate uses just because they also have illegitimate ones.

However, I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility, always. In exchange for the freedom to use these tools for their beneficial purposes, you take on the responsibility of not abusing that trust.

Sadly, not everyone can be trusted to act responsibly; if they could, we wouldn't need laws and police and armies. What's needed is a balance where those authorities don't interfere with someone exercising their freedoms responsibly, but can interfere when the trust is abused.

And that is why, on balance, complete anonymity on the Internet is not a good idea. I have no problem with being anonymous for routine use, but if you can't even be identified in the face of overwhelming evidence of a crime, backed by an order from the lawful authorities, something's wrong. At that point, for everyone who could genuinely take advantage of true anonymity to make a contribution to society -- and I'm sure these people do exist -- how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters, copyright violators, organised criminals, paedophiles, and even (really, for once) terrorists are we letting get away with it?