Well... as I said before I don't like eXeem either. And I never said that they are using BT2. The code for BT2 isn't even out yet. BT2 is right now just a bunch of ideas to improve on BT1.
Also, I take it that you are a beta tester of eXeem. One of the things I'm wondering about is that is the lock to SuprNova just a thing that is implemented in the beta? To prevent non-beta testers from getting on the eXeem network? I have tried to get on the eXeem using a "cracked" version, but it won't let me on because I had to get the "bootstrap" peer from the server first... and I need a unique key for that.
1) Apparently the hostility towards trackers has grown. Sweden has just passed (or is in the process of passing) an anti-P2P law. Do you have ANY idea how expensive hosting is outside of NA. 2) Obviously it is easier for anyone to attack one target (the tracker) and destroy it, instead of a web of decentralized nodes. And it need not be the MPAA/RIAA. There are localized versions of the MPAA/RIAA in many other countries (I know both Canada and Australia have almost exact copies).
What are you talking about. So it's ok to blame the tracker or P2P server? So it's ok that the tracker and P2P server are sued? I run a tracker ring and I find that kind of thinking the most insulting. Most trackers are up just because the host wanted to share... and you take advantage of that fact and rejoice in that the tracker host is getting his ass sued off and you are in your home warm and cosy?
* * *
Decentralization basically spreads out the pressure on all nodes in the network, just like how deer always travel in packs, so that it is harder for the lions to select a specific target. And even if a deer is killed by the lion the pack still survives. That's decentralization.
Actually, now that I read your post again, I have a few questions.
A few of the modifications sound like BT2. First about the subdirectories. BT2 (Bittorrent2) also has this modification; this is just so that the torrent name (which also surve as root dir) is not part of the torrent hash. People have been having trouble changing the torrent name without changing the torrent hash with BT1. This is important in BT1 because many torrent sites only look at the torrent name within the file, and list that name. If that name happens to be inaccurately named there is no way but to create a whole new torrent, since changing the torrent name means changing the torrent hash. Now this seems like a minor/useless modification in a network in which listing on a torrent site doesn't really matter (actually you can't), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad modificiaton.
Also, it is a given that "announce" and "announce-list" are missing... after all there is no fixed tracker.
Also, are you sure the central "tracker" is needed for the users to stay online the eXeem network? I was under the impression that the "tracker" (or "server") exists just to bootstrap new people onto eXeem. If the central "tracker"/"server" is indeed like you say, it seems even more like BT2... (the "tracker"/"server" being the "hub" that redirects peers to the real "trackers")
Don't get me wrong... I never really had high expectations for eXeem... especially now since it is closed-source and ad supported. But I was just unclear on a few things that you were talking about...
Hmm... I seem to have missed a post some time ago talking about the structure of eXeem. I'm quite disappointed to hear that it seems to be a little like BT2 (a "hub" routes peers to the "tracker"). And as he said, it is not in any way decentralized.
"Second, Exeem is pretty much what was rumored earlier: a blending of the tracker, the BitTorrent client, and decentralized indexing"
I wonder where this information came from... from what I hear (the announcement itself) I thought that eXeem is more similar to KaZaA (sloncek seems to repeat that eXeem is similar to KaZaA, except with the BT file transfer protocol, which I don't think really matters... maybe I need to listen to the announcement again? O.o) in that there is no "tracker"; each peer for any particular file is found one by one, instead of together from an announce (like what BT does). But that is just my guess.
Secondly, I spent some time thinking about how it is possible to, in the case that each client is indeed a tracker in the stricter sense of the word, 1. find the tracker that tracks a particular file/torrent, and 2. make it so that all the trackers that track a particular file/torrent will have all the peers on that particular file/torrent. Even if the second is curable, it means massive bandwidth used for every announce a peer makes...
Just some thoughts.
1. Apparently people has established the notion that Lokitorrent is already "illegal" even before any sort of court ruling. If you are going to argue about this issue with regards to the law behind it, at least do so after there has been any sort of decision, instead of proclaiming that LokiTorrent is illegal before any court ruling.
I don't like to muddle the boundary between law and ethics. LokiTorrent is NOT illegal. Not until the court says so. What happened to innocent until proven gilty?
2. I personally don't see how this can kill bittorrent; basically people will migrate from "weak" trackers such as LokiTorrent and Suprnova ("weak" because of their location) to "stronger" trackers such as PirateBay. That's basically what's going to happen. And when BT becomes untenable (something which I doubt highly), people will go to completely decentralized networks, and will hasten the development and maturity of such networks (which are still relatively immature atm). I think the main point I am trying to make here is that regardless of what MPAA or RIAA does, P2P will continue to exist. I think MPAA and RIAA are stuck in the past; there are many ways to change their business model (ex. focusing on merchandise instead of the intellectual property) to cooperate with P2P rather then against it. I see that as almost a no-brainer: what's the point of going against them when you'll never completely get rid of them anyway? Sure BT traffic might wane for a few months, but it will eventually go back to what it was very soon... that is, if another P2P protocol hasn't already replaced it then.
Oops... made several mistakes in that post. It should be "I always thought that, though a little on the vulnerable side, bittorrent is far better then other completely centralized networks" and "I think that BT as it is overcomes the problem of speed by limiting the number of files shared"
This sounds good and all, but how is this system different from other decentralized P2P systems?
I mean, think about it: on any P2P network, the up/dn ratio is 1. I.e. there are as much downloaded as uploaded. Then the question becomes: why do we think that the other decentralized networks are slow? And what does eXeem have that the others don't? During the beta-testing stage the speed might be ok, since the number of files on the network is very limited, so it's easy to search for other peers, but what happens when there are millions of files on the eXeem network? Again, the question is, what advantage does eXeem have over other decentralized P2P networks?
I always thought that, though a little on the vulnerable side, but far better then the other completely centralized networks, since there *are* thousands of trackers out there. I think that BT as it is overcomes the problem of speed (or rather, let's you get download speed faster) by forcing the number of files shared (each file represents a connection to a tracker; if you have too many and no upload speed you won't get any download speed), and making it very easy to find all the other peers. It's hard to see how this works with completely decentralized P2P networks...
Any ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
Well... as I said before I don't like eXeem either. And I never said that they are using BT2. The code for BT2 isn't even out yet. BT2 is right now just a bunch of ideas to improve on BT1.
Also, I take it that you are a beta tester of eXeem. One of the things I'm wondering about is that is the lock to SuprNova just a thing that is implemented in the beta? To prevent non-beta testers from getting on the eXeem network? I have tried to get on the eXeem using a "cracked" version, but it won't let me on because I had to get the "bootstrap" peer from the server first... and I need a unique key for that.
1) Apparently the hostility towards trackers has grown. Sweden has just passed (or is in the process of passing) an anti-P2P law. Do you have ANY idea how expensive hosting is outside of NA. 2) Obviously it is easier for anyone to attack one target (the tracker) and destroy it, instead of a web of decentralized nodes. And it need not be the MPAA/RIAA. There are localized versions of the MPAA/RIAA in many other countries (I know both Canada and Australia have almost exact copies).
What are you talking about. So it's ok to blame the tracker or P2P server? So it's ok that the tracker and P2P server are sued? I run a tracker ring and I find that kind of thinking the most insulting. Most trackers are up just because the host wanted to share... and you take advantage of that fact and rejoice in that the tracker host is getting his ass sued off and you are in your home warm and cosy?
* * *
Decentralization basically spreads out the pressure on all nodes in the network, just like how deer always travel in packs, so that it is harder for the lions to select a specific target. And even if a deer is killed by the lion the pack still survives. That's decentralization.
Actually, now that I read your post again, I have a few questions.
A few of the modifications sound like BT2. First about the subdirectories. BT2 (Bittorrent2) also has this modification; this is just so that the torrent name (which also surve as root dir) is not part of the torrent hash. People have been having trouble changing the torrent name without changing the torrent hash with BT1. This is important in BT1 because many torrent sites only look at the torrent name within the file, and list that name. If that name happens to be inaccurately named there is no way but to create a whole new torrent, since changing the torrent name means changing the torrent hash. Now this seems like a minor/useless modification in a network in which listing on a torrent site doesn't really matter (actually you can't), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad modificiaton.
Also, it is a given that "announce" and "announce-list" are missing... after all there is no fixed tracker.
Also, are you sure the central "tracker" is needed for the users to stay online the eXeem network? I was under the impression that the "tracker" (or "server") exists just to bootstrap new people onto eXeem. If the central "tracker"/"server" is indeed like you say, it seems even more like BT2... (the "tracker"/"server" being the "hub" that redirects peers to the real "trackers")
Don't get me wrong... I never really had high expectations for eXeem... especially now since it is closed-source and ad supported. But I was just unclear on a few things that you were talking about...
Hmm... I seem to have missed a post some time ago talking about the structure of eXeem. I'm quite disappointed to hear that it seems to be a little like BT2 (a "hub" routes peers to the "tracker"). And as he said, it is not in any way decentralized.
So much for that.
"Second, Exeem is pretty much what was rumored earlier: a blending of the tracker, the BitTorrent client, and decentralized indexing"
I wonder where this information came from... from what I hear (the announcement itself) I thought that eXeem is more similar to KaZaA (sloncek seems to repeat that eXeem is similar to KaZaA, except with the BT file transfer protocol, which I don't think really matters... maybe I need to listen to the announcement again? O.o) in that there is no "tracker"; each peer for any particular file is found one by one, instead of together from an announce (like what BT does). But that is just my guess.
Secondly, I spent some time thinking about how it is possible to, in the case that each client is indeed a tracker in the stricter sense of the word, 1. find the tracker that tracks a particular file/torrent, and 2. make it so that all the trackers that track a particular file/torrent will have all the peers on that particular file/torrent. Even if the second is curable, it means massive bandwidth used for every announce a peer makes... Just some thoughts.
Just a few things I want to note:
1. Apparently people has established the notion that Lokitorrent is already "illegal" even before any sort of court ruling. If you are going to argue about this issue with regards to the law behind it, at least do so after there has been any sort of decision, instead of proclaiming that LokiTorrent is illegal before any court ruling.
I don't like to muddle the boundary between law and ethics. LokiTorrent is NOT illegal. Not until the court says so. What happened to innocent until proven gilty?
2. I personally don't see how this can kill bittorrent; basically people will migrate from "weak" trackers such as LokiTorrent and Suprnova ("weak" because of their location) to "stronger" trackers such as PirateBay. That's basically what's going to happen. And when BT becomes untenable (something which I doubt highly), people will go to completely decentralized networks, and will hasten the development and maturity of such networks (which are still relatively immature atm). I think the main point I am trying to make here is that regardless of what MPAA or RIAA does, P2P will continue to exist. I think MPAA and RIAA are stuck in the past; there are many ways to change their business model (ex. focusing on merchandise instead of the intellectual property) to cooperate with P2P rather then against it. I see that as almost a no-brainer: what's the point of going against them when you'll never completely get rid of them anyway? Sure BT traffic might wane for a few months, but it will eventually go back to what it was very soon... that is, if another P2P protocol hasn't already replaced it then.
Oops... made several mistakes in that post. It should be "I always thought that, though a little on the vulnerable side, bittorrent is far better then other completely centralized networks" and "I think that BT as it is overcomes the problem of speed by limiting the number of files shared"
This sounds good and all, but how is this system different from other decentralized P2P systems? I mean, think about it: on any P2P network, the up/dn ratio is 1. I.e. there are as much downloaded as uploaded. Then the question becomes: why do we think that the other decentralized networks are slow? And what does eXeem have that the others don't? During the beta-testing stage the speed might be ok, since the number of files on the network is very limited, so it's easy to search for other peers, but what happens when there are millions of files on the eXeem network? Again, the question is, what advantage does eXeem have over other decentralized P2P networks? I always thought that, though a little on the vulnerable side, but far better then the other completely centralized networks, since there *are* thousands of trackers out there. I think that BT as it is overcomes the problem of speed (or rather, let's you get download speed faster) by forcing the number of files shared (each file represents a connection to a tracker; if you have too many and no upload speed you won't get any download speed), and making it very easy to find all the other peers. It's hard to see how this works with completely decentralized P2P networks... Any ideas?