Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom's Mega Claims 1 Million Users Within 24 Hours

Kim Dotcom's new "Mega" cloud service appears to be a hit. According to Dotcom over 1 million have signed up for their free 50 gigabytes of storage. Although that is about 1% of the Dropbox user base, it's not a bad start. From the article: "Mega quickly jumped up to around 100,000 users within an hour or so of the site's official launch. A few hours after that, Mega had ballooned up to approximately a quarter of a million users. Demand was great enough to knock Mega offline for a number of users attempting to either connect up or sign up for new accounts, and Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

211 comments

  1. Considering the reputation that megaupload had ... by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the reputation that megaupload had, I don't think he'll have any problems getting users. I think, like so many other websites, he will have trouble monitizing the service without becoming obnoxious.

    I'm sure adblock will deal with the obnoxious ads ...

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
  2. Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but I don't have 50GB of porn to fill it...

    1. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why you spend the next few weeks downloading porn, followed by the next few months uploading it all to Mega and freeing the space in your hard drive, and then... you'll have to download it *again* from Mega just to be able to watch it.

    2. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you'll be able to rectify that quite quickly.

    3. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Funny

      but I don't have 50GB of porn to fill it...

      You need to hand in your geek card. Immediately.

    4. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to the internet, its for porn and everything will be allll right by the end of the day,

    5. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure you'll be able to rectify that quite quickly."

      But what if it's not anal porn?

      --
      This space available.
    6. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make it so that you can give it a url or torrent/magnet link or nzb to save files!

    7. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why keep porn? I store all my porn on the cloud service pornchan.

    8. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I don't have 50GB of porn to fill it...

      50GB? - Are you trying to cut down or something?

      I have slightly over 1TB of porn, currently growing at about 3GB each week. HD video clips at about 1GB each do help filling up those drives...

    9. Re:Bbbut, bbut, bbut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo

  3. Mega's availability remains spotty ... by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 1

    Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing

    ...but it's sure better than the current state of megavideo.

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
  4. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it stays.

  5. Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The patchy availability will be resolved soon I hope, but there's a major flaw I ran into, which is that when you sign up it doesn't ask you to confirm your password by typing it twice. This means you can make typos without realising it. Because the password is also an encryption key, you can't reset it. You can't delete the account either, nor can you register two accounts to one email address. I made a typo in my password. Net result: I permanently can't access my account, nor can I register a new one with my preferred email address.

    1. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are other issues too. I tried to upload a small HTML test file in Firefox 18 and it never uploaded. MEGA initially asks you to use a real HTML5 browser and suggests as Chrome download link. So I tried it again in Chrome and it worked. It took about 30 seconds to start the transfter to the cloud. Their fancy HTML5 UI is cool but it has issues. Other features people might not be aware of is that you can right-click your folder and get a link to share with friends. So here we go again sharing, uh, free stuff. So the encryption is how they intend to get around the Feds. I guess having to have your friend's keys also makes it more difficult to share.

    2. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is a feature. If they could reset your password, doesn't that mean they have access to your files?

    3. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lesson from this: write your password in clear text in a terminal window or notepad or something else that is local to your computer, write it down and then cut/paste it into the password dialogue. Then unless you have issues using cut-n-paste, you should know exactly what the password is, even with a "enter once" system.

    4. Re:Teething Problems by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You're also in trouble if you mistype your e-mail address.. you'll have to register all over again.... Personally I use a password manager to generate and save a secure strong password, anyways, so I don't type it in the first place.... :)

    5. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tried +mega@example.com?

    6. Re:Teething Problems by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Send an e-mail for password recovery: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

    7. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here, that's a fantastic idea! Thanks a lot for this, I hadn't thought of that :)

    8. Re:Teething Problems by benf_2004 · · Score: 2

      tried +mega@example.com?

      I had the same issue as OP and tried this. The site did not accept it as a valid e-mail address.

    9. Re:Teething Problems by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not being able to reset the password on their side is a feature.

      Not requiring password confirmation is a bug, and a pretty amateurish one, to be perfectly honest.

    10. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had tried to setup an account with my preferred address, and found myself unable to login. I then did as you described with my secondary email, still unable to login even pasting in the password. I was wondering if it's because I/m in the US.

    11. Re:Teething Problems by sheddd · · Score: 1

      "it doesn't ask you to confirm your password by typing it twice"

      I like this; it irritates me when sites ask for confirmation.

    12. Re:Teething Problems by X.25 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The patchy availability will be resolved soon I hope, but there's a major flaw I ran into, which is that when you sign up it doesn't ask you to confirm your password by typing it twice. This means you can make typos without realising it. Because the password is also an encryption key, you can't reset it. You can't delete the account either, nor can you register two accounts to one email address. I made a typo in my password. Net result: I permanently can't access my account, nor can I register a new one with my preferred email address.

      That is incorrect.

      You can not 'confirm' the account unless you type your password (when clicking on confirmation link). So in order to create the account, you had to type the 'mistyped' password again.

      If account has not been confirmed, you can just register using same email/etc.

      I know because I did it myself (had a very similar scenario to yours).

    13. Re:Teething Problems by X.25 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not being able to reset the password on their side is a feature.

      Not requiring password confirmation is a bug, and a pretty amateurish one, to be perfectly honest.

      Password is required in order to confirm/create the account, you can not do it without entering password after you've clicked on the confirmation URL provided in an email.

    14. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have just re-registered the same email address. Until you verify it, the account isn't opened. You sure get blocked easily...

    15. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just run this password generator in a shell script:

      #!/bin/sh
      NEWPASS=$(dd if=/dev/random bs=8 count=1|base64|sed s/"="//)
      echo "New password is:"
      echo " "
      echo $NEWPASS

      then copy and paste your new password into the web page.

    16. Re:Teething Problems by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "The patchy availability will be resolved soon I hope..."

      So, I got this buddy in New Zealand and he calls me up this morning and just starts yakking away like he's in the same room. After about 10 minutes, I asked him if he got a free pre-paid phone or something, and he says "Nope, calls are free now, Mate." I ask him what the hell he was talking about and he says "This bloke from the Tele company knocks on me door and says that if we give them permission to put this device on our land-line they won't charge us for phone calls anymore. How fucking cools is that, Mate?" Pretty fucking cool, I says.

      Now I'm sitting here wondering how much a 50GB hard drive and a 256k modem costs...

    17. Re:Teething Problems by benf_2004 · · Score: 1

      I was unable to verify my account and I get this when trying to re-register using the same e-mail address: "This e-mail address has already registered an account with Mega."

    18. Re:Teething Problems by benf_2004 · · Score: 1

      I was unable to verify my account and I get this when trying to re-register using the same e-mail address: "This e-mail address has already registered an account with Mega."

      Scratch that. Even though attempting to verify the account gave an error saying that my password was incorrect, apparently it worked but took overnight to finish. I was unable to log in last night (could not find account), but this morning it works normally. This is stupid, but at least it works, I guess.

    19. Re:Teething Problems by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      I discovered the same password problem today, so you're not the only one. Pretty sure I did write the correct password though.

      So there might be that some/several accounts got corrupted somehow, and are thus dead. Noticed the same problem you had, no way to reset or delete the account, so I had to use another of my ~30 standard emails... But yeah, looks like a real problem.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    20. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if the site doesn't want users who are so slope-headely stupid that they A) don't realise there is only one box to enter their password but then B) mis-type their password which means C) They probably have one password they use everywhere which D) [sorry, I'm stretching this now] means their Mega files are not as secure as Mr Dotcom needs them to be so that he doesn't get complaints of 'hacking'.

    21. Re:Teething Problems by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That's not what I mean by "password confirmation". That's email confirmation. This entire subthread is about someone saying that they don't make you type the password twice to confirm that you input it correctly.

    22. Re:Teething Problems by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I usually do something simiar. Generate a key with PasswordSafe, and then paste it into the password box. I do this with all services regardless of whether or not there is a single, or multiple password boxes. For many accounts, I have absolutely no idea what my password is, because it's store in my password safe.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    23. Re:Teething Problems by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      No. You hash the password and then store the hash, then when the user enters a password you re-hash that and compare it to the stored value, at no point do you need to store the actual password (other than holding it in memory briefly while you hash it). This is why an email reset is usually offered, the host doesn't have the password so they can't send it to you.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    24. Re:Teething Problems by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Try adding a . at the end of your email address? That works for some things.

      For example if you've screwed up with foo@yahoo.com try foo@yahoo.com.

      --
    25. Re:Teething Problems by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      This used to be a neat and handy trick, but it's been ages since I've registered for a site that allows it. I've taken to using email aliases on Google Apps.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    26. Re:Teething Problems by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      Password confirmation is a good thing. Even the best typist still makes mistakes.

      What's annoying, though, is a second "email confirmation" box. God, I hate those things. Email addresses are shown in plain text, and if I don't get a confirmation email, that's a good hint I entered it wrong.

      But the worst of them all was the idiotic Windows XP wifi connection screen. It had you enter the wifi password twice--to connect, not to change it.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    27. Re:Teething Problems by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Let us count:

      Click create account, write info That's one. Then you get email, and click the link in the email. Then you get a page asking for password, again. That's two.

      One and one makes two. We on same page?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    28. Re:Teething Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the original poster couldn't enter it the second time, because it doesn't ask you to confirm it the first time. Now his email address is stuck in limbo, for however long they leave inactivated sign-ups open. Now are you on the same page with everyone else? Nope? I thought so.

    29. Re:Teething Problems by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And if you typed it wrong the first time because they skipped the most basic step in dealing with password masking? Oh, right, you're locked out with no way to fix it

      Get it yet?

  6. So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

    1. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by seyyah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

      1. Not every user is using 50gb.
      2. He has lots of money.
      3. He is investing in a new enterprise and knows that he has to spend money first in order to make money in the future.

      I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

    2. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, in the case of Facebook, people go crazy over privacy issues. But here it's OK for them to sell your data.

    3. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 million users using 50 gigabytes, replicated once, is only about 8 million euros per year at the rates they pay for servers and connectivity (72 tb + gigabit = 500/server)

      but you know they ain't launching with 50 gigabytes x 2 (each file is duplicated at least once) in reserve for each sign-up... probably more like 10-20 servers spread out with capacity added as needed.

    4. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advertising.

    5. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by knight24k · · Score: 1

      This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

      Depending on the backend SAN he has, you can use thin-provisioning since there will not be a demand from all users for the entirety of their storage immediately. He can install 50 or so TB, provision that out then add the rest as needed, when needed. The user will see 50gb available but until they actually upload a certain percentage of that they don't actually have that amount of storage. Since the vast majority won't be uploading that in the near term he can do this until there is a demand for it.

      Even adding in duplication for backups that only means 100TB. 100TB SAN is not that expensive actually. Since this is storage and not active access you can load it up with inexpensive 1TB SATA disks vs FC.

    6. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Depending on the backend SAN he has, you can use thin-provisioning since there will not be a demand from all users for the entirety of their storage immediately.

      He also doesn't need thin provisioning, to have a file system smaller than the capacity promises.

      It's very possible also, the storage organization is not just your files uploaded stored on a filesystem verbatim.

      Your files, might, for example be divided into 4K or 8K chunks.

      And each 'chunk' instead of each file, might be persisted to a file on a filesystem/volume somewhere, with a "chunk ID" based on a crypto hash of that chunk, placed in a directory based on its ID; different pieces might be on different volumes as required.

      There may be a database table indicating what files you have on your account, and what "chunk IDs" in what order belong to the files you uploaded.

      Chunks might be identified by checksums, so if you have two users with a very similar file, or a very similar 1K, 2K, 4K, or 8K block. The different users' files will share the exact same "chunks".

      Instead of having to store the same exact chunk multiple times.... then you increase an "in use" counter on the chunk, and have records from both separate user accounts pointing to the same "chunk"

      The result is... you could upload 50GB of data, but use zero, or very close to zero extra space on the server --- as long as all the files you uploaded, are identical or 99% the same as some file uploaded by a different user of the service.

    7. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

      I'm thinking all those elves that are unemployed now that Christmas is over are working hard for Mr Kim.

    8. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

      It is accomplished as follows and in this order:

      - Thin provisioning
      - Data dedupe
      - Data compression

    9. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Zapotek · · Score: 3, Informative

      This would work if the files weren't encrypted.

    10. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

      It is accomplished as follows and in this order:

      - Thin provisioning
      - Data dedupe
      - Data compression

      Yeah, because data de-duplication on files encrypted with different keys is clearly a big win ...

    11. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking about this and at first I figured this was exactly what was being done but considering all your files are encrypted with your own key would that makes this approach impossible? I suppose if they just treat a bit pattern of N size as a 'chunk' it would be possible but computationally expensive as the data pool grows??

      Perhaps they do some hashing of the file on the client before uploading and then search for a match to avoid uploading and storing the same data? Would this be a security issue though? Could the fact that a hash matches another hash be used as evidence a user has the same file as another user?

      Would be interested to see some infrastructure details on their setup.

    12. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by grumbel · · Score: 2

      Mega encrypts files using the hash of the content as encryption key, this allows them to have dedup without knowing how to decrypt the files.

    13. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by seyyah · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they do some hashing of the file on the client before uploading and then search for a match to avoid uploading and storing the same data? Would this be a security issue though?

      Hashing the files before you encrypt them would give you ... the hash of the unencrypted files. How is that going to help store two encrypted files?

    14. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by knight24k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is called deduplication and most modern SAN systems have this feature. You can have both thin-provisioning and deduplication for increased savings. In Mr. Dotcoms business model I doubt he will get many exact duplicate files, but that really doesn't matter because you can still deduplicate similar binary strings within differing binary files or as you said duplicate blocks. In any case dedupe and thin-prov are not mutually exclusive, you can do both.

      Normally dedupe is more efficient for backups or when used on the disk target for a virtual environment since you only need one copy of notepad.exe if you are hosting 200+ windows servers. The same applies to unchanging files in *nix systems. The thing is you *have* to have some way to "present" the 50GB of promised space. While you may use dedupe or any other method to reduce your storage footprint the end user wants to see that storage. You either have to present that space raw, which comitts it from the SAN or as a thin-provisioned LUN with only the bare minimum of space actually reserved. How you store those files after the fact is up to you as the hosting company, but if you promise 50GB of space the user will want to see that space available.

    15. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      Chunks might be identified by checksums, so if you have two users with a very similar file, or a very similar 1K, 2K, 4K, or 8K block. The different users' files will share the exact same "chunks".

      Instead of having to store the same exact chunk multiple times.... then you increase an "in use" counter on the chunk, and have records from both separate user accounts pointing to the same "chunk"

      That is a good description of data compression - see LZW, for example. Unfortunately, encrypted data can't be compressed. Any sufficiently strong encryption algorithm produces a bitstream which is virtually indistinguishable from random. For any given size dataset, random data does not repeat in sufficiently long sequences to achieve useful compression relative to the dataset size.

    16. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      How does Mega decrypt without knowing the hash?

    17. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Data dedupe will not work if the content is encrypted with personal keys. So this does increase the "cost" of service and storage space required. However, I suppose unique data uploads which create 99% of the traffic will be uploaded by a few hundred individuals. Those who already do this for tv shows and movies. DMCA notices will not be able to remove all duplicates unless they get all the uploads. This is the advantage mega enjoys over rival storage cloud clones. It will be difficult for other hosts to ignore this. They might offer this feature in premium and make it available in us as well.

    18. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Trilkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your encrypted data, you mean? I don't mind them selling my encrypted data, honestly. Would take more time to unencrypt it than it's really worth and they'd just lose money. Renting out those botnets DOES cost something and it'll take them a while to break AES128.

      --
      Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
    19. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Trilkin · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. Decryption is done client-side.

      --
      Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
    20. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In their developers guide they state the encryption is done using a hash on the users password. What source do you have for the claim that they use the hash of the content?

    21. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if the files are encrypted or not. Like many people you likely think that an encrypted file, a text file, a JPEG file or any other type of file must be handled in distinct ways by the file system. The are all just strings of bits and the file system local or remote just stores them as such. The applications using the files treat them differently but that's not at the file system level.

      Even if the files are encrypted and with different keys, the file system at Mega can still look for identical blocks and store them as a single block with a higher usage count and indices to it. Given that they are encrypted and with different keys the system may find fewer identical block but it's not impossible, particularly if you use a smaller block size. There are fewer bit patterns available in a 2K block than in an 8K block.

    22. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What's your theory, by the way?

      MPAA/RIAA/DOJ honeypot?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if 99% of your data consists of copies of copyrighted CDs and DVDs it might be pretty efficient. And saleable. And going to get him back in jail.

    24. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by beckett · · Score: 1

      What's your theory, by the way?

      MPAA/RIAA/DOJ honeypot?

      great, glad they're preoccupied with something other than sniffing my packet.

    25. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by gringer · · Score: 2

      Deduplication can be done perfectly well on a file level even for encrypted files. If this is anything like PGP, you could do it by having multiple encrypted messages attached to the encrypted file (or linked to the file), one for each person with access to the file. Each message contains the same [unencrypted] data — a decryption key for the file — but can only be decrypted by the person who the message is for.

      In a well-secured system, all these [small] decryption messages would be stored in a random order in the same place, so you attempt to decrypt all these messages with your personal key in order to retrieve the decryption key for the file. That way, even if you have access to the decryption messages, you can't tell if any particular person will be able to decrypt that file without knowing their decryption key. A more reasonable compromise (faster, a bit less secure / deniable) would be for each person to have their own decryption key store, which is queried whenever they want a particular file.

      As long as the file encryption is done on the client side (in the same way by all clients), the server can do deduplication without having any idea what the file contains.

      Presumably Mega has the encrypted hashes (or not, it doesn't really matter), which are useless for accessing the contents of the file without access to the keys that are used to decrypt and extract the file hashes. Mega does not need to store these user keys on the server, so they probably don't.

      However, Mega should be able to identify files stored on their server if they have access to the original files. Consider if a Mega has access to a file called 'The_HoBBiT_Crazy_Delta_XxXDVDRip_firsTPost.avi' (e.g. they were provided the file by some company who wanted to check for compliance with licensing). They use the Mega client system to encrypt that file, producing an encrypted file and a file decryption key. They then check to see if any files on the server have an exact match to that encrypted file (e.g. first by hash, then by comparing length, then by an exact comparison of the encrypted bytes). It would then be possible to delete the file, check to see who has uploaded this particular file, and produce a list of people who also have access to that file.

      [mostly copied from my response(s) elsewhere]

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    26. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That is a good description of data compression

      It's not exactly the same as compression, because compression is a bit more of a flexible concept. Data compression can leverage some similar concepts. In fact, if they divide files into 4K blocks, they can choose to compress separate blocks they store, as well, or make a decision to compress or not, based on the ratio of size reduction.

      Any sufficiently strong encryption algorithm produces a bitstream which is virtually indistinguishable from random.

      This is true, but it would be unusual for someone to include large encrypted files, as encryption is inconvenient and difficult for the end user as well to work with at well -- normally there would be no reason to encrypt media, software, that other users would have in common.

      This method could still be useful on DRM encrypted materials such as eBooks or DVDs, since multiple people would have the _same_ ciphertext.

      I'm not sure of what their service policies are -- it might very well be a violation of their policies to upload large encrypted files, in which case, they could recover space from unexpected resource hoggers dedup doesn't work on, by terminating the offending accounts of people uploading encrypted blobs.

    27. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      That is called deduplication and most modern SAN systems have this feature. You can have both thin-provisioning and deduplication for increased savings.

      It's true that SANs have deduplication functions, but there are a few problems with SAN deduplication -- the main one, is this typically operates on a 'volume', LUN, or disk level. A SAN can't deduplicate data stored across storage systems, so there are scalability limits.

      That is this doesn't scale very well to large numbers of volumes, with intentional duplicates for performance... and when you need to make backups of the filesystem, there is a tendency of the backup or replication target to Re-Duplicate the deduplicated data.

      An application that actually implements this functionality can achieve far better characteristics than a SAN is capable of, because the application would be aware of consumers of the data, and logical pairings.

      And at lower cost, by using non-specialized storage hardware

      There are perhaps 2 SAN vendors out there with a scalable dedup option, and they are both very expensive per GB of storage options that would not be a very tenable thing to base a free service off of.

      That is, the dedupping SAN vendors charge 10 to 20x as much per disk drive of a given capacity, than you can buy off the street, and claim efficiency, lower cost, lower power consumption because dedup means you get twice as much storage.

      (E.g. SANs are expensive, and the storage vendors want to reap profit advantages by selling dedupped storage, for more, as well... which can be as much increase in cost as dedup supposedly saves)

    28. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't even NEED a lot of money to get 50 PB of storage.

      Granted, you need some, but it's a lot less than people think.

      18 months ago, BackBlaze showed how to build a 135 TB server for $7,384, and the price would be just about the same today.

      That's $56,696/TB for a total of $2,834,800

      For what Kim has in mind for Mega, 3 million in storage hardware isn't exactly surprising. In fact I'd be surprised if they haven't budgeted for a lot more than that.

    29. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      There are fewer bit patterns available in a 2K block than in an 8K block.

      Yes. There are obviously fewer bit patterns in a 2k block than in an 8k block.

      But let's look at the numbers for a moment.

      A 2k block has 2,048 bytes and thus 16,384 bits.
      An 8k block has 8,192 bytes and thus 65,536 bits.

      The 2k block has a total of 2^(16,384) different bit patterns.
      The 8k block has a total of 2^(65,536) different bit patterns.

      That's 1,2 * 10^4,932 bit patterns vs 2 * 10^19,728.

      Now, it has been estimated, that at the current time, the Universe has a total of 10^80 protons. I don't know how many electrons but let's assume a 1:1 ratio, and let's be generous and say that we can 10^20 bit patterns in a single electron.

      You now only need 1.2 * 10^4,832 universes to store every possible 2k block for your lookup table.

      I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, and hope that not only is the multiverse theory correct, but that we also discover ways to communicate with them instantly - otherwise your compression system might have some flaws in them ...

    30. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      2. He has lots of money.
      3. He is investing in a new enterprise and knows that he has to spend money first in order to make money in the future.

      I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/building-mega-ars-pre-launch-interview-with-kim-dotcom/

      The Mega business plan will be a distributed model, with hundreds of companies large and small, around the world, hosting files. A hosting company can be huge or it can own just two or three servers Dotcom says--just as long as it's located outside the US.

      "Each file will be kept with at least two different hosters, [in] at least two different locations," said Dotcom. "That's a great added benefit for us because you can work with the smallest, most unreliable [hosting] companies. It doesn't matter because they can't do anything with that data."

      More than 1000 hosts answered a request for expressions of interest on the Mega home page. Dotcom says several hundred will be active partners within months. Successful hosts will get paid E500 per month per server; each server needs to supply 24 hard drives with 72 terabytes of storage and one gigabit of bandwidth, among other requirements.

      That's all down the road, however. For now, Mega is launching with just one, professional, hosting operator--a subsidiary of Cogent, based in Dotcom's home country of Germany.

      According to other articles, he has a (maxed out) 10Gbit pipe from this Cogent subsidiary
      And FYI - Cogent was the US host for megaupload.com, so they believe in his business plan enough to host for him again.

      If he can get Mega back into the big leagues again, it's going to put some serious strain the undersea fiber that feeds the USA.
      That's the most expensive wired bandwidth around and he's planning to host nothing in the USA.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    31. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that they are encrypted and with different keys the system may find fewer identical block but it's not impossible...

      Yes. Exactly! Finally someone gets it!

      I play the lottery every week. It's not impossible to win 10 times in a row. It hasn't happen yet to me, but it definitely could happen. Some day.

    32. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their policy is to encrypt your data with a unique key for each user. That actually one of their selling points.

    33. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by echostorm · · Score: 1

      This weird criminal somehow has 50 GB * 1,000,000 = 47.6 petabytes of enterprise storage? Without getting one dollar? How is this paid for? Not to mention all the data traffic back and forth which will be even more expensive?

      1. Not every user is using 50gb.
      2. He has lots of money.
      3. He is investing in a new enterprise and knows that he has to spend money first in order to make money in the future.

      I assumed all that was fairly obvious. What's your theory, by the way?

      A single one of his new racks holds 720TB of data. http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-shows-off-mega-rack-121218/

    34. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > MPAA/RIAA/DOJ honeypot?

      You're suggesting Kim Schmitz is working with the RIAA? Did you pay attention to what this guy did in the last two decades?

      Not that I would put such an act beyond him but they cannot give him "free of charge" for something he does not assume to get convicted anyway and there is no real money for him in it (he wants 10s of millions, nothing the RIAA/DoJ could or would pay).

    35. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by grumbel · · Score: 1
    36. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do wonder if there is some potential for deduplication by having the client pass hashes of the unencrypted data back to the server during initial upload.

      Would suck from a security point of view though.

    37. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      "TL;DR: the data's probably deduplicated."

    38. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by trewornan · · Score: 2

      Not only that, to address a lookup table with 2^65536 elements you'd need an 8K index, or in other words exactly as much storage to store the addresses as the original data.

    39. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by trewornan · · Score: 1

      No because they have to return the file encrypted with the users key . . . and they don't have the users key.

    40. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If he can get Mega back into the big leagues again, it's going to put some serious strain the undersea fiber that feeds the USA.
      That's the most expensive wired bandwidth around and he's planning to host nothing in the USA.

      Sounds like an easy point to place a firewall and drop all the traffic to/from Mega.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    41. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, they're encrypting each file with an unique random key in the browser before uploading, using AES-128. I know they put an RSA key in local storage, so I guess that is then used to encrypt the key for the file and then the encrypted key and the file is uploaded.. And according to them, the RSA key is encrypted by your user password. Still not sure if the encrypted rsa is stored on the server or just client, but it would be pretty useless if you always had to use the same browser, and if local storage gets wiped in any way that would also kill all your files, so.. Probably stored on server.

      So that means:
      Login password used to decrypt RSA key, which is then used to encrypt random 128bit data (for AES128 of new files), and decrypt relevant encrypted strings for downloading files.

      I do know that the download shortcuts created have both file ID and a key attached after the # sign (meaning the server never sees it, only the client-running javascript).

      So far, so good -- theoretically. As long as you trust them it's pretty solid, but it's fairly easy to include a small js snippet that would send the password you type into your browser to some server. Possibly their own, possibly encrypted (they already have full crypto running in browser, and there's a lot of background talk to and from server). If LEA really really wanted, they could force Mega to serve special JS to a suspected client that sent the user PW back to them, or just the entire decrypted RSA key.

      So, while pretty safe (and as safe as you can make it in pure HTML5 / JS I think), and with their whole business riding on them not knowing what you're doing, I think we're decently protected from "for teh lulz" random grabs of passwords.. But to be truly secure, you'll need trusted code running on your local machine.. As they actually point out in their FAQ :)

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    42. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      However, Mega should be able to identify files stored on their server if they have access to the original files. Consider if a Mega has access to a file called 'The_HoBBiT_Crazy_Delta_XxXDVDRip_firsTPost.avi' (e.g. they were provided the file by some company who wanted to check for compliance with licensing). They use the Mega client system to encrypt that file, producing an encrypted file and a file decryption key. They then check to see if any files on the server have an exact match to that encrypted file (e.g. first by hash, then by comparing length, then by an exact comparison of the encrypted bytes). It would then be possible to delete the file, check to see who has uploaded this particular file, and produce a list of people who also have access to that file.

      So you're saying that every file is encrypted with the same key? Err no. What they could do would be to hash the file before upload, in the browser, and then send that hash in addition to the encrypted file (and encrypted key).

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    43. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Dedupe should NOT work if every file is encrypted.

      IF they do the crypto right, even if the exact same file is being encrypted it will NOT result in the same encrypted file. If it does it means they are doing the crypto wrong!

      And with strong crypto it becomes exceedingly unlikely that you'd have duplicate blocks - assuming a block size that's 512 bytes or larger. If you find significant numbers of duplicate blocks it means something is wrong somewhere. What are the odds that 512 random bytes will the same as another 512 random bytes? If you flip a coin 4096 times, what are the odds that you'll get the same result sequence again if you flip a coin another 4096 times? That's basically what decent crypto is aiming for - it looks random. If it turns out to be far from that random, you've found a flaw in the crypto or the system.

      You might have dupe blocks in the metadata of the file system that's handling those encrypted files but that might not be good enough, or you might not want to dedupe those anyway...

      Of course for 100% backups they'll have duplicate blocks but you're not supposed to dedupe backups...

      --
    44. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      well, technically, they only have to break your hashed password (probably easiest attack vector). Then they can decrypt your private key, and then they have full access to all your files.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    45. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by ejrb · · Score: 2

      You don't even NEED a lot of money to get 50 PB of storage.

      Granted, you need some, but it's a lot less than people think.

      18 months ago, BackBlaze showed how to build a 135 TB server for $7,384, and the price would be just about the same today.

      That's $56,696/TB for a total of $2,834,800

      For what Kim has in mind for Mega, 3 million in storage hardware isn't exactly surprising. In fact I'd be surprised if they haven't budgeted for a lot more than that.

      (You did ask for correction if you were wrong...)

      $7,384 for 135 TB is $54.70/TB or ~$56,000/PB.

      This should only serve to strengthen your point of course.

    46. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      He's describing deduplication; an established technology - widely used at file system level and in enterprise storage/backup products - and in which hash collisions are a known risk which is mitigated in various ways.

    47. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by elucido · · Score: 1

      well, technically, they only have to break your hashed password (probably easiest attack vector). Then they can decrypt your private key, and then they have full access to all your files.

      And then they find your porn stash. Big deal. Most people aren't cyber criminals or wares pirates but nearly everyone has porn they don't want to keep all over their harddrive for their kids to find.

    48. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by gringer · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that every file is encrypted with the same key? Err no. What they could do would be to hash the file before upload, in the browser, and then send that hash in addition to the encrypted file (and encrypted key).

      Sending a hash of the file pre-encryption for a file encrypted differently for each person would not be particularly useful for deduplication at all, because it would give no indication as to the content of the file. The only people it would help would be groups interested in file usage statistics. You could do the block-level deduplication mentioned previously and hope that by random chance some blocks are similar, but that would be a tiny amount of space saved in comparison to the method I have outlined.

      To aid deduplication, every file would be encrypted with its own key (different for each file, based on a hash of the file name). You would be able to obtain / decrypt the original file (assuming a sufficiently random / secure encryption key) under the following two situations:

      • Access to the original file, so that you could generate the encryption key
      • Access to the encryption key for that file, presumably obtained from someone who has access to the original file
      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    49. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by trewornan · · Score: 1

      But there's some solace to be found in the fact that the whole point of all this encryption is so that Dotcom can prove in a court of law that there's no way he could have any idea what files were being stored. So why would he cheat and put himself in legal jeopardy?

    50. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Your user can "see" 50GB of space, but until they try to write to it, it is nothing but a picture. Then when they write to it, it is a picture of stored files. Of the 50GB, only 10 might be unique data and the rest is fill ins from duped blocks. If you wanted to take down KdC's business model, create thousands of accounts that only write 50GB of pre-encrypted files.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    51. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That thought crossed my mind as soon as I heard the news.........

    52. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by stub667 · · Score: 1

      If I copy a file from your share to my share, there is no reason to download the file, decrypt it, encrypt it with my key, and reupload it. Instead, I just need to reencrypt the file's key with my own and upload that, pointing to the same big encrypted blob.

    53. Re:So, correct me if I'm wrong... by jimbob666 · · Score: 1

      The storage would be 'Thin Provisioned' so not all of it is assigned up front. Only a very low percentage of users will use the maximum. Like when you build a Virtual Machine you can assign xGB to it but it 'grows into' that provisioned space.

  7. Unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't recommend. Can't connect to web site. Haven't received email when trying to sign up.

    Even Blizzard did a better job of taking initial load with Diablo 3.

  8. Re:I signed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't support Kim.com or Anonymous. Nor do I support DRM or the US Government.

  9. to knock Mega offline ... by sdnoob · · Score: 1

    while the feds tap in.

  10. Still pretty slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I signed up yesterday, but I have yet to complete uploading anything due to the traffic on the site. Hopefully in a few days after things die down it will be useable. I plan on using it as a secondary cloud backup for songs I have written (and which I own the copyright).

  11. Re:is it secure? by Nyder · · Score: 5, Informative

    is it encrypted transmission and storage? otherwise its just another dropbox clone. also, 1st post!

    Yes, Yes, No it's not, and no you weren't.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  12. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure adblock will deal with the obnoxious ads ...

    But isn't that their monitizing plan? To you mega you will need to run their ad blocker which replaces normal advertisments with ads from mega.

  13. why is this surprising or interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Offering free 50GB isn't a useful business model or at all surprising that lots of people would sign to to try to get something for nothing.

    I bet if he advertised a free steak and a blow job he'd get 2 million users in 24 hours (well, as long as he wasn't promising to fulfill that promise personally...)

    1. Re:why is this surprising or interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet if he advertised a free steak and a blow job he'd get 2 million users in 24 hours (well, as long as he wasn't promising to fulfill that promise personally...)

      That's the difference between the free and premium account :)
      With a premium account your blowjob handler will be chosen based on _your_ preference.

    2. Re:why is this surprising or interesting? by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      At least, even with the free account the blow job is guaranteed.
      The only matter left in the dark is who's to give and who's to take...

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    3. Re:why is this surprising or interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I support what he stands for, let's face it, he's not very high on the list of people I'd pick to give me a blowjob.

  14. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was free and then had paid plans.

    I'm sure their business model is alluring enough to attract plenty of paying customers.

  15. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think, like so many other websites, he will have trouble monitizing the service without becoming obnoxious.

    I assume he may be going for paid premium accounts

    When I use a free (valuable) service, I always consider (and sometimes purchase) the premium account. Seems fair.

  16. So nice to see by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 0

    So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

    --
    -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    1. Re:So nice to see by uutf · · Score: 1

      So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

      Because other hosts are so trustworthy?

    2. Re:So nice to see by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      So nice to see dumbasses believing that everyone who signs for 50 GB free online storage is a dumbass.

    3. Re:So nice to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up! Egg Zactly!

    4. Re:So nice to see by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      Kim Dotcom nee Schmitz has a colourful vita, to say the least.
      But he isn't stupid.
      And, things being as they are, he is highly motivated to keep hollywood and the spooks out.
      He still has enough money to live in his sort of style and do nothing. Starting a new venture like mega.co.nz is his personal vendetta.
      So, keeping their interests and motivations in view, Kim doesn't look that bad right now.

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    5. Re:So nice to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He still has enough money to live in his sort of style and do nothing.

      His sort of style is being convicted very regular.

    6. Re:So nice to see by elucido · · Score: 1

      If you don't have to pay anything and it's 50 gigs of storage for free why not? What can you lose besides the time to upload it?

    7. Re:So nice to see by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      The answer to that would depend on what your data and privacy is worth to you. Remember: if you aren't paying for it you are the product.

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
  17. Try an E-mail multiplier by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Try an E-mail multiplier, such as SpamGourmet.

    You can set up any number of separate E-mail addresses which get forwarded to your main E-mail, and if you set mega as the "exclusive sender" there's no limit count on that address.

    1. Re:Try an E-mail multiplier by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Alternatively use Gmail. Any dots before the @ are ignored by Gmail, so mygmailaccount@gmail.com, mygmailaccoun.t@gmail.com and my.acc.oun.t.@gmail.com are all essentially aliases of each other. I use the dots as a binary counter to keep track of which address is used for what.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    2. Re:Try an E-mail multiplier by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

      But, if you get spam at one of those addresses with added periods, there is no way to turn it off.

      And, unless you have a really large email address, it's going to be hard to keep track of more than about 20 or 30 different variations. I just checked spamgroumet.com, and I currently have 650 disposable addresses. I easily can tell what each address is for, based on what words are in the address.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
  18. How are we supposed to help Anonymous by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    when they are busy ratting each other out to the FBI? What do they need help with - negotiating their plea agreements with federal prosecutors?

  19. Dumasses are where you find them by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

    What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

    I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

    Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.

    1. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was the javascript part. Is that related to Java? Not that that is a problem because I have it installed on all my browsers.

      (sorry I couldn't help myself)

    2. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

      I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

      The "client side" javascript encryption really isn't safe. Even if the javascript is delivered via SSL, the fact is that you are loading a copy of the encryption program from the server each time you execute it. That's not safe, because the server can, at any time, change the program from under you and expose your data. That's no different from just letting them have your unencrypted data and hoping they'll keep it safe.

    3. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.

      What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

      I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

      Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.

      I don't understand why people would think they will have access to their data when the government takes new servers down in a midnight raid.

    4. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      Yup and he mysteriously got out of legal trouble and now suddenly has enough money to rent an entire datacenter. Good luck with your "encryption".

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    5. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "client side" javascript encryption really isn't safe. Even if the javascript is delivered via SSL, the fact is that you are loading a copy of the encryption program from the server each time you execute it. That's not safe, because the server can, at any time, change the program from under you and expose your data. That's no different from just letting them have your unencrypted data and hoping they'll keep it safe.

      The encryption is done using industry standard algorithms, so there's no chance of them inserting any kind of back door. This means that the only thing they could do is to ship the encryption keys back to the server so that they could look at the data.

      If the thought of that bothers you, you can use their open API and write your own client that doesn't rely on script files downloaded from the server. That way you're in full control and you know it's safe.

      At least with client-side encryption your data isn't open for snooping if some malicious third party (e.g. bought-out law enforcement) get access to the servers.

    6. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Dotcom promised that copies of the data will be stored using two different hosting providers in two separate countries (and not in the US). This makes it a lot harder for the US government to take down both copies at the same time.

    7. Re:Dumasses are where you find them by elucido · · Score: 1

      What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?

      I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.

      The "client side" javascript encryption really isn't safe. Even if the javascript is delivered via SSL, the fact is that you are loading a copy of the encryption program from the server each time you execute it. That's not safe, because the server can, at any time, change the program from under you and expose your data. That's no different from just letting them have your unencrypted data and hoping they'll keep it safe.

      If you are that paranoid then encrypt it yourself prior to uploading it.

  20. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Informative

    Links in the summary... NONE of them to the actual service. Brilliant!

    Here is the actual site: https://mega.co.nz/

  21. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's for megabox, his music service.

  22. review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it made a key never gave it to me
    then i cant upload files
    seems like a useless thing
    anyways have a nice day that was a perfectly good waste a time

  23. Re:I signed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you at least an athletic supporter?

  24. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame there's nothing between the free tier and the first paid tier. 100GB would be more than enough for me, and the cheapest pro account is still too expensive for how much I'd use it.

  25. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3

    Interesting. Mega seeks to achieve profitability by sharing revenue with participating artists - creating a channel with as little rent-taking as possible. As opposed to the super-rent-seekers: today's media and telecom conglomerates.

    Kim says Megaupload was killed by the Obama administration, as a gimme to the media cartels - in return for financing and as a replacement for failing with SOPA. I'd add that Megaupload was SPECIFICALLY targeted over Eastern European hosters for enforceability, and over others because of Dotcom's incipient "MegaKey" agreement with big-name urban artists.

    So, from where will the source of this revenue come? Ads are obvious - but really another nut to crack. I don't think this is what the new Mega has in mind for a foundation pillar.

    Rather, I suspect that the artist agreements are expected to drive enough subscriber interest, for real takes, vs. simple freeloaders. The volume of signup in the past 24 hours is a great validation for Dotcom, if prospective participants need prompting.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  26. Spotty availability by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

    "Demand was great enough to knock Mega offline for a number of users attempting to either connect up or sign up for new accounts, and Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

    Just wait until Slashdotters start waking up around the World. That should take care of both spotty and availability.

  27. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The artists want out of these RIAA handcuffs as badly as do their fans. They see there is a different, more direct model that doesn't fatten the talentless go-betweens sitting in air-conditioned offices, producing no value at either end of the production pipeline.

    Sorry, Mr. Ego Hat, David Geffen.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  28. Kim versus Google by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm pretty sure everyone loves to hate the RIAA/MPAA so Kim Dotcom had little trouble rounding up support when they moved to shut down MegaUpload.

    Unfortunately, he's now picking a fight with bigger opponent and possible a mass of small website owners who rely on their Adsense revenues to help pay the bills.

    Kicking the RIAA/MPAA for their sins is one thing, taking money out of the mouths of independent content creators (by hijacking their ad-revenues to fund his Mega-services) is something altogether different.

    I admire KD for what he's doing with the MegaKey service but I really wonder if he's got an oar out of the water in picking a fight with Google and the many websites who rely on that company's ad-revenue sharing.

    BTW: I'm one of those sites and I'll be mighty pissed if Kim starts replacing the ads on *my* webpages that should be generating money to pay for *my* efforts -- because I have *nothing* to do with MegaKey so why should *I* be paying for it?

    1. Re:Kim versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He won't be showing ads on your pages. You don't even have pages. You just have HTML that my browser fetches from your server. My browser will show his ads, which I chose to see.

      Are you pissed at me when I walk to the fridge during the commercials on TV? Is someone suing Coca Cola for luring me to it?

      Here's a hint: if you don't want your ads filtered, be it by Mega or anyone else, integrate them into your content. That's right, serve them from your own server and give them filenames that don't scream "ad". We'll both be happier - you because I see your ads, me because you're not trying to shove Google's tracking down my throat.

    2. Re:Kim versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taking money out of the mouths of independent content creators

      I wasn't aware that he was taking any money from anyone. Not making money != losing money that you have.

      (by hijacking their ad-revenues to fund his Mega-services)

      They're not hijacking any ad-revenue.

      What the hell are you talking about?

    3. Re:Kim versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google makes how many millions of dollars off serving ads on copyrighted material on youtube? seems like they just don't like competition!

    4. Re:Kim versus Google by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      They're not hijacking any ad-revenue.

      What the hell are you talking about?

      megakey

    5. Re:Kim versus Google by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure everyone loves to hate the RIAA/MPAA so Kim Dotcom had little trouble rounding up support when they moved to shut down MegaUpload.

      Unfortunately, he's now picking a fight with bigger opponent and possible a mass of small website owners who rely on their Adsense revenues to help pay the bills.

      Kicking the RIAA/MPAA for their sins is one thing, taking money out of the mouths of independent content creators (by hijacking their ad-revenues to fund his Mega-services) is something altogether different.

      I admire KD for what he's doing with the MegaKey service but I really wonder if he's got an oar out of the water in picking a fight with Google and the many websites who rely on that company's ad-revenue sharing.

      BTW: I'm one of those sites and I'll be mighty pissed if Kim starts replacing the ads on *my* webpages that should be generating money to pay for *my* efforts -- because I have *nothing* to do with MegaKey so why should *I* be paying for it?

      Are you also very angry at AdBlock authors/users?

      You wouldn't be using it yourself, would you?

    6. Re:Kim versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you willing to accept the responsibility when someone's machine is completely infected by some drive-by attack from an ad from some company you hired to put them there?

      Until then STFU.

  29. Re:I signed up by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

    I don't support Kim.com or Anonymous. Nor do I support DRM or the US Government.

    You're a rebel without a cause.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  30. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    If it is anything like megaupload, the differences on the first tier and free account will be the download links. You get a faster download and the people you give the links to does not have to wait for a specific server or be limited in speed because of public servers being overloaded.

    This is probably only valuable if you are hosting files for work or something and need a quick way to disseminate them outside the building. Most smaller companies who are not into web services do not have a lot of extra upstream bandwidth.

  31. Sheesh! Talk about asking for trouble. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Look what happened to data of the last people who trusted him for cloud storage.

  32. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    I thought their monetizing plan would probably be more akin to dropbox's monetizing plan. I'm not sure what that would be, and I haven't been able to actually start using mega, but it sounds like dropbox, only a lot more secure.

  33. That's the way the Vietcong did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brill: In guerrilla warfare, you try to use your weaknesses as strengths.
    Robert Clayton Dean: Such as?
    Brill: Well, if they're big and you're small, then you're mobile and they're slow. You're hidden and they're exposed. You only fight battles you know you can win. That's the way the Vietcong did it. You capture their weapons and you use them against them the next time.

    $10 says within 6-18 months, there will be a story here about a certain dot com being a 'sting' all along.

    Tick tock...

  34. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by beckett · · Score: 1, Funny

    1 million users within 24 hours = i can 'register', but can't do anything, like upload my own files. this seems to be one of those features we take for granted on most cloud services.

  35. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by guttentag · · Score: 1

    Mega Conz?

    Is that supposed to be a reference to the founders as convicts? Or the users becoming future convicts?

  36. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Agreed. And, speaking of that...

    "The doctors want out of these insurance company handcuffs as badly as do their patients."

    There. Modified that for you...

  37. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're new here, aren't you ? :)
    Slashdot articles, la creme de la creme of journalism...

  38. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
  39. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    according to google if you type in kims new domain name

    mega.co.nz
    you will get
    About 1,150,000,000 results (0.22 seconds)

    this service will never get up cause of that

  40. Not quite the perfect storm for web storage... by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mega's availability remains spotty as of this articles' writing."

    So it's only partly Cloudy.

  41. user yes, but doesn't work by kdemetter · · Score: 1

    I registered , but when I tried to upload something as a test, it just stalled.
    Well, it's beta, but still, you do expect the most important functionality to work.

    Hope they fix it soon.

    1. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Technician · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The connection to New Zeland is via undersea cable over a monopoly called the Southern Cross.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable

      Is one fiber cable going to be able to handle the traffic?

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in NZ, and wasn't able to upload on either Firefox or Chrome.

    3. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bulk of the servers are in Germany

    4. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet this is how Cryptonomicon got started.

    5. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yes, together with the magic Unicorns that guard your data and the gnomes that print the money to pay for it all.

      No, it's not a sting operation run by the US government that has made a deal with someone looking to a couple years of prison who desperately doesn't want to go there. They would never do that. He would never do that. None of them has done it before...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by PartyBoy!911 · · Score: 1

      RTFA, how does this get modded up to +5??

      That's all down the road, however. For now, Mega is launching with just one, professional, hosting operator--a subsidiary of Cogent, based in Dotcom's home country of Germany.

    7. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mega is not hosted in NZ.
      http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/mega-launches-dotcom-says-he-would-have-hosted-it-nz

    8. Re:user yes, but doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is hostedt in Germany right now

  42. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different industry, same people.

  43. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by twoears · · Score: 1

    ...he will have trouble monitizing the service without becoming obnoxious.

    Too late. He's got that covered.

  44. Register? by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

    How did you lot register in the first place? It keeps telling me "Please check your e-mail and click the link to confirm your account." but there hasn't been one, not for hours. :(

    1. Re:Register? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your spam folder. That's where my confirmation went.

    2. Re:Register? by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

      Did, nope, unless hotmail.com blocks Mega by default, something's broken.

  45. Problem signing on ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1, Informative

    I signed on with my hotmail account.

    Hours have passed. No confirmation message anywhere.

    Yes, I did check the "junk" folder.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Problem signing on ! by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      It appears that hotmail is blocking/trashing all emails, and not putting them in junk, very interesting.

      gmail works, FWIW.

    2. Re:Problem signing on ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was having trouble registering with my hotmail account. I tried several times but never received the email confirmation.

      If you also have this problem, you need to add "hostmaster@mega.co.nz" to your contact list so that the email can show up...I guess hotmail is blocking them.
      After that, just try the registration again and it will appear in your inbox.

  46. As a host I'd be more worried about the bandwidth by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    Content arguments aside, 500/mo for a 72TB server on a 1Gb connection is losing money for someone else's business. Even without redundancy you wouldn't make your money back on hardware for years, and that's before any support.

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  47. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Soon the laws will be changed so that when they see traffic coming to/from your IP to megaupload, you will go to jail if you can't explain what you are doing there.

  48. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No reference, .co.nz is just the domain name used in New Zealand.

  49. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's too funny. There is no way that swapping the ads on a website with explicit user consent by using a program installed on the user's computer is copyright infringement. The ad replacement program isn't copying any content, in a way it is like picking up a free magazine pasting over some of the ads with other ads then giving it to someone else. There is no copying involved ergo no copyright infringement.

  50. Re:is it secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod +1 LOL

  51. Encryption Woes by forgot_my_username · · Score: 1

    I am curious about how he is doing strong encryption without getting busted for it. He is planning a worldwide cloud of these... so that means into and out of the US, and into and out of any number of countries that are on the no-no list for strong encryption.

    Does someone know why he thinks he can get away with this?

    1. Re:Encryption Woes by forgot_my_username · · Score: 1

      I am curious about how he is doing strong encryption without getting busted for it. He is planning a worldwide cloud of these... so that means into and out of the US, and into and out of any number of countries that are on the no-no list for strong encryption. Does someone know why he thinks he can get away with this?

      mmmm... my last statement....
      I meant to say:
      Does someone know why he thinks he can get away with this legally?

    2. Re:Encryption Woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does someone know why he thinks he can get away with this legally?

      It's all in the news. He had every detail of the business model checked by 20 different teams of top lawyers in a variety of countries - including the US, of course.

    3. Re:Encryption Woes by biodata · · Score: 1

      I don't think the US has a monopoly on maths, or implementation of mathematical algorithms.

      --
      Korma: Good
    4. Re:Encryption Woes by forgot_my_username · · Score: 1

      No, they don't however, if you try to use strong encryption from inside the united states to outside the united states you fall under their law.
      And they don't like it, if you use strong encryption to many countries around the world.

      In fact .... it is a big nono.
      Would they prosecute... probably... he has a huge target on his forehead.

  52. Loopy digitaltrends.com article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That article you reference on digitaltrends.com is so full of holes that it's comical. It tries to argue that viewers of a web page are under legal obligation to view the page as the page designer intended.

    That has never been the case since the dawn of the Web, neither as a matter of practice nor as a matter of law. There is neither a binding contract nor any other kind of agreement between the designer/owner and the viewer of a public page.

    1. Re:Loopy digitaltrends.com article by Alranor · · Score: 1

      Apparently, UserStyles is facilitating massive copyright infringement.

  53. Just tried it by yuval83 · · Score: 1

    It looks good. A little bit slow now but it think it will be better.

  54. Dotcom needs to deal with the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dotcom needs to deal with the US, and in particular recover the costs of the now clearly Malicous prosecution and loss of revenue.

    New Zeeland is setting an excellent example here

    MFG, omb

  55. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I signed up and there is no requirement to install anything.

    Their business plan revolves around paid accounts. Like Google Drive, Dropbox, Skydrive and all the rest the basic free account is maybe ad and data-mining supported but otherwise really free. If you want to share links though you will quickly hit the bandwidth limits unless you get a paid account, and presumably in future there will be other benefits like integration with other sites and apps.

    Lots of people seem willing to pay for extra storage as well. 50GB might sound like a lot but as Dropbox, Mozy, Flikr, Picasa and all the other storage/backup providers have discovered a lot of people want more than that.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  56. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. I'll paste here what I tried to reply as comment to the above-cited article (but couldn't, since the owners of "Digital Trends" so adamantly like to censor every comment):

    I would say Parmar's argument doesn't hold water. First, MegaKey DOES NOT turn your computer into part of a voluntary botnet, nor does it constitute malware... that argument is just silly. Content injection/modification with FULL user consent is not malware-like behaviour: if it was, then ad-blockers and stuff like userscripts-dot-org would be equally considered malware-like (and they're not).

    Looking at the whole "copyright" side of the argument, it's easy to see it doesn't apply, since (at least in most countries) it is fully legal and within "fair use" to make PRIVATE derivatives of any copyrighted work. If it was ACTUALLY illegal, then it would be a big problem to use browsers such as Lynx or Mosaic, which are almost certain to render most pages "incorrectly" (i.e. in a manner different from what the original author intended); it would be a big problem to use stuff such as NoScript; it would be a big problem for people who block Flash/Java by default; etc. Nope, doesn't seem reasonable at all.

    Lastly, if the company itself (i.e. Mega) could be directly sued by other websites under the claims of "inducing lost profit", "interfering with other businesses" or whatever, then companies/individuals making ad-blockers (such as AdBlock Plus) would be EVEN MORE liable since they make websites "lose" 100% of profit from ads, rather than just 15%. In fact, websites SHOULD prefer people to use MegaKey over generic ad-blockers, since it means that they get to keep 85% of their ad profit (rather than 0%).

  57. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't confuse wanting out with wanting some other fatcat middleman such as a this retard.

  58. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sign up twice?

  59. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who says patients don't want insurance? if my kid breaks his leg and it ends up costing $500,000+ in initial and follow-up procedures, i sure don't want to have to be the one to try to fork over the money. hospitals would shut down without insurance companies. i don't know how doctors look at it, as i am not one, but i can't imagine they want to get rid of their main source of income.

  60. Mega Conz? by ejrb · · Score: 1

    Last time a million people signed up for a service titled "mega conz" a Nigerian prince did very well... Lets hope this time is different.

  61. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Status quo. Brainwashing.

    When someone get's better percentages - without the handcuffs and obligations and restraints of working the Capitol/Sony/EMI plantations?

    Croppers gonna leave...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  62. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Movi · · Score: 1

    Since when does MTV have music back on it?

  63. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 2

    He is referring to the malpractice insurance the doctors need that inflates the cost of repairing your kid's broken leg.

  64. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we all have air-conditioned offices? I mean it's not like we're living in Vietnam here.

  65. Re:Considering the reputation that megaupload had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't. I have no idea what your parent poster is talking about. (Yes, I have MTV. And no, it doesn't promote new music in any shape or form, as far as I have seen over the last years.)

  66. Rapid User Base Population Increase? by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    If the US government is agin it, it's probably good. Go KdC!

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...