Trackerless BitTorrent Beta Posted 432
jgarzik writes "BitTorrent development is occuring at a furious pace. At the beginning of May, an Azureus update added distributed tracker and database features. Yesterday, Bram updated BitTorrent to include support for trackerless torrents in the new BitTorrent 4.10 beta."
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the bittorrent.com explanation:
***
BitTorrent Goes Trackerless: Publishing with BitTorrent gets easier!
As part of our ongoing efforts to make publishing files on the Web painless and disruptively cheap, BitTorrent has released a 'trackerless' version of BitTorrent in a new release.
Suppose you bought a television station, you could broadcast your progamming to everyone in a 50 mile radius. Now suppose the population of your town tripled. How much more does it cost you to broadcast to 3 times as many people? Nothing. The same is not true of the Web. If you own a website and you publish your latest video on it, as popularity increases, so does your bandwidth bill! Sometimes by a lot! However, thanks to BitTorrent the website owner gets almost near-broadcast economics on the web by harnessing the unused upstream bandwidth of his/her users.
In prior versions of BitTorrent, publishing was a 3 step process. You would:
1. Create a ".torrent" file -- a summary of your file which you can put on your blog or website
2. Create a "tracker" for that file on your webserver so that your downloaders can find each other
3. Create a "seed" copy of your download so that your first downloader has a place to download from
Many of you have blogs and websites, but dont have the resources to set up a tracker. In the new version, we've created an optional 'trackerless' method of publication. Anyone with a website and an Internet connection can host a BitTorrent download!
While it is called trackerless, in practice it makes every client a lightweight tracker. A clever protocol, based on a Kademlia distributed hash table or "DHT", allows clients to efficiently store and retrieve contact information for peers in a torrent.
When generating a torrent, you can choose to utilize the trackerless system or a traditional dedicated tracker. A dedicated tracker allows you to collect statistics about downloads and gives you a measure of control over the reliability of downloads. The trackerless system makes no guarantees to reliability but requires no resources of the publisher. The trackerless system is not consulted when downloading a traditionally tracked torrent.
Although still in Beta release, the trackerless version of BitTorrent, and the latest production version are available at http://www.bittorrent.com/ [bittorrent.com]
Right. This only solves part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The *AA can still nail you for being a distributor of unauthorized Copyrighted material if you use Bittorrent. You are of course giving out copies to other users; so all the *AA needs is a list of IP addresses that are in the swarm. Granted, the *AA hasn't really done this. But if there's one thing that they have shown is that they are extremely motivated to find people who are involved, and hit them with a bill for a $2-3K settlement.
With an economic bounty like that, the only thing the Lawyers of the *AA are lacking is a way to automate the technology. From what I hear, that technology is coming. Supposedly some of it is in beta test now.
The only defense one might hope for in the U.S. is a scheme which added plausible deniability. That's not here yet with BT; and even if implemented, would undoubtedly result in a slowdown of downloads.
Personally, I think your best bet if you are concerned is to use an offshore ISP.
Re:Right. This only solves part of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Right. This only solves part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You're damned right it doesn't. THIS ISN'T THE POINT OF BIT TORRENT!!!
Why doesn't anybody here seem to get this?
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the reason why DHT, as the monkeys released it, is a Bad Thing(tm). They should've err'd on the side of caution and assumed torrents were "private" unless explicitly marked otherwise. Because they added the "private" flag to the info dictionary, sites cannot retroactively privatize their torrents -- it changes the info_hash, which is the exact reason why the monkeys put it there (where it technically doesn't belong.)
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hitting some of the larger college campuses would be a good start. Some colleges will fight, but until the precedent is set, others will block, and the highest bandwidth users will be offline.
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Losing Centralized tracker is not good (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the centrallized tracker is a very important thing. It decides who downloads what. Without the central tracker the effort will not be that synchronized.
I was expecting the development to be towards making the tracker redundant, with creating a super tracker, that would track the tracker.
Also the
Also the Emule has it better that it can determine that multiple names of a file are actually the same file, based on the same Hash.
I would think it would be better to have super trackers track the trackers, with multiple super-trackers tracking the same tracker. And each super tracker would be tracking multiple trackers. Super trackers would provide the search capabilities, and would share tracker information among themselves. They would also provide tracker redundancy. They would also be able to determine if the different file names are in fact the same file, and merge several trackers into one.
I think the peers with good bandwidth and with maximum completed parts would become the tracker. The benefit of being the tracker would be that you get the file faster, because the tracker would obviously give itself the benefit. Then when the tracker has completed its own file. A new tracker would be selected.
What do people here think?
Re:Losing Centralized tracker is not good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Losing Centralized tracker is not good (Score:5, Informative)
Bittorrent isn't a "share all the files on my hard drive" system. It's a distribution system for content publishers. It will most likely never be the former because that's how you get the MPAA, RIAA, etc on your back. If you want a list of content publishers use Google.
Also the Emule has it better that it can determine that multiple names of a file are actually the same file, based on the same Hash.
There's never any danger of downloading multiple versions of the same file because you download the torrent file from the publisher's website - not the system. That torrent connects you to one or more peers, the mini-trackers, which are presumably operated by the publisher. And then it's just standard bittorrent stuff.
It's good way to publish legitimate content. It's not a good way to distribute illegal content. First of all the torrent has a record of your peer IP addresses. So, all the lawyers need to do is have the peers listed in the torrent shut down -- then the torrent is useless. Sure, you could hide for a while using zombie windows boxes as your "master" peers, that's one level of indirection. But as they become unavailable you need to distribute new torrent files with fresh peer lists. Maybe that's not a problem, but it seems like more trouble than it's worth.
If you want a share-all-my-files p2p bittorrent, try eXeem (or eXeem Lite).
Re:Losing Centralized tracker is not good (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Insightful)
Less lobbying, less facist laws and less greed notwithstanding, this also helps in the big picture by promoting and strengthing open source software development in general. This has many benefits, some we've seen, and some we have yet to realize.
These people may not be working in the front lines, they're still contributing.
A lot of coders I know never had a college education, n
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Funny)
I would have thought that is what your zombie window intermediary is for.
Michael
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose, using some new hypothetical p2p program, my client uses one network, say, Gnutella, to search for a title. Using Gnutella, my client downloads a file of instructions that describes how to reassemble what I want using various numbered blocks. (For example, a block's number might be its SHA-256 hash) Next, my client searches the network, maybe using a completely different netwo
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Interesting)
You have just given yourself the answer you were looking for. Freenet makes it *very* difficult to track down the sources of files. If you're downloading music or videos, it is sufficiently anonymous for what you're doing.
But as is pointed out on several sites discussing Freenet, if you're a dissident trying to release information, you could still be in for a whole lot of trouble...
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Interesting)
Inefficient network use also leads to waste of money - which could be used for charity. And you're forgetting of a fundamental right that all humans must have: Freedom of speech.
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of people--I can't say whether this is true of the BT developers or not, as I don't know them--who are interested and drawn to projects that have a hint of subversion as well as technical challenge to them. Given the popularity and rate of development of such projects, this seems rather obvious.
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Interesting)
A week in 96 degree sun building houses for the homeless.
AND I also like BT.
I agree the artists need some money to keep working. I disagree that they won't write or create new art unless they get millions of dollars. I really disagree that the middlemen who do nothing that can't be replaced by BT should get rich. I donate money to artists (via magnatune among others) where I know the artists are actually going to see a majority of the money and I've established that I like the art.
I also try some stuff, don't pay for it, don't bother to delete it but never listen to it again.
There is now more quality songs/art/tv shows/movies than I could watch/listen to if I spent every day from waking to sleeping consuming it. Only monopolies are holding up the prices- but the glut is coming and prices will drop.
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Insightful)
People have lives OTHER than charity, as your presence here proves. As for this being less than honorable, that's the eye of the beholder. It's like the VCR, guns, or deep fryers. They can all be used for good or for evil. Just because they can be used for evil doesn't obviate they're good potential, nor should we ban them because of their potential for abuse.
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm. How does one use a deep fryer for evil? Open a KFC?
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh what? Like YOU'VE never heard of a deep fried a baby. Sure, sure. All of those KFC and and french-fry lovers like to stand up and say that a ban would be against their best interests, but even they know the primary reason people get deep fryers is for cooking babies.
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Funny)
Ever seen someone's hand deep fried? Sure, it's not pleasant if it's *your* hand. But it's finger licking good . .
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Interesting)
Those who employ this argument generally contrast "charity" against some activity of their victim of which they disapprove. Actually, it's a cheap debating trick. Some of the stock answers are:
(a) "You first. If you eliminate all your activities of which I disapprove, I'll reciprocate."
(b) No one is obligated to give. That's one of th
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you not still have a knife for self-defense? You can go hunting with a bow. Poisons, traps and pheromones work well for varmit removal and are overwhelmingly the preferred method. I have fun playing with Jacks. You don't need to punch holes in
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Y is an activity that saves lives, such as buying vaccines. X is a frivolous activity such as buying a DVD. People don't live their lives choosing Y instead of X every time because you end up with no life of your own.
And you only whine about it when X happens to be something that reminds you of the need for Y, or when Y suddenly occurs to you and you want to make a point. But every single time you buy a goddamn DVD, you're choosing X over Y. That's how life works. Every cheap novel you buy is a child who dies because you didn't spend the time to go out, find her, and help her. Come to terms with this before you start tossing it out as a random argument against a given X.
And why does Bittorrent even remind you about the need for charities? I mean, you've got a strange set of connectiosn going. I mean, pointless artwork in Central Park, sure, but why on Earth do you jump on a random technical project like this?
(Score:-1, Flamebait)
Oh, right. Some people. So there's a 50/50 chance you're flamebaiting or that you've just got a weird set of things that trigger thoughts of Y for you. Either way, spend some time thinking about these issues; it'll do you good. Maybe think about the kids dying as you sit there. Think about that each time you speak with righteous indignation about what people should be spending their time on. I'm not even telling you not to say what you're saying. I'm just saying give it some thought.
$10 can buy vaccines to absolutely save someone's life. With what rationale are you buying a DVD with that $10? I know why I do it. Do you?
Re:So...Idle Hands are... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think of what a difference Mother Teresa could have made if she had gotten an MBA, passed the Series 7 exam, and went to work at a high-powered Wall Street firm.
If she dedicated her life to that job, working tirelessly around the clock at the expense of her personal life and giving up on the opportunity to start a family, she could have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and used some of that money to have a rea
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent UP! (Score:4, Funny)
See you in Guantanamo, "Bram".
Didn't you get the joke, mods?
Damn it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn it! (Score:4, Funny)
That's no tracker, it's a client!!!
Re:Damn it! (Score:5, Funny)
Your sad devotion to that ancient business method has not helped you conjure up the stolen music, or given you clairvoyance enough to tell the difference between a technophobic grandmother and a music pirate.
Damn it! K-Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's leave your sex life out of this.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
(all you have to do is join the swarm and sit back and log all the IPs reported by the tracker and from all the inbound connections.)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Either that, or I just have a headache.
Diluting its strengths? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you lower the cost of entry to producing a BT release, won't that mean more .torrent file swimming around? With the increase of different torrents everywhere, won't that dilute the power of BT?
Is it legal to post only in questions?
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Yes it is. The Independent Thought Police have been dispatched.
Have a nice day.
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess what I"m saying is -- torrents are a popularity contest. You can't win by being a poser.
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully... allowing more people to post more content is one of the project's goals.
With the increase of different torrents everywhere, won't that dilute the power of BT?
No, because the uploaders for a given file consist only of the people who have previously downloaded that file. So no matter how many files are "out there", the total bandwidth available to distribute any particular file is always proportional to the number of people interested in that file.
File-A's popularity won't leech bandwidth from File-B's swarm, because File-B's swarm wasn't providing any bandwidth for File-A in the first place.
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:4, Informative)
Lets say you and I both recorded the latest Britney_Spears story on ET. We each grabbed from the first frame of the story as our recordings captured it, to the last frame of the story. It happens the there was a comercial break in the middle of the story, which we have each clipped out. However our clips are not identical, and if we are both capturing from an analog source, our actual files will be different. Even if we both share the file as 'ETBritneyInterview.mpeg2' our file hashes will be different, so there will be no collision.
Next up... Joe is a fan of Ubuntu Linux, and tracks down an ISO file for it. Puts it on his web server with a
Last up, I create an ISO for some new distribution of Linux, and create a trackerless
Hope that addresses your question.
-Rusty
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:3, Informative)
"Clients only share the same bandwidth if they used the same
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the second point, imagine a scenario where I have a big file (perhaps an iso) and I create and upload a
Now, in the old model there are only a few places you could have uploaded your
However, in the new model you won't notice, and the internet will have some people downloading via your torrent and others downloading via your friend's even though the data being shared is identical. At least, that was the grandparen'ts concern, and I suspect they are right.
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Diluting its strengths? (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike more inefficent protocols, BT choose to implement basic game theory into the design. While it is not nescessary for a client to implement the tit-for-tat algorithm (see prisoner's dilemma), pretty much all do because not implementing it would make the client work less efficently in the BT network.
Other p2p networks try to reward uploading in different ways, but all those ways are far less efficent than using
There still is a target (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There still is a target (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There still is a target (Score:3, Insightful)
Bittorrent isn't designed for distribution of subversive or otherwise contraband content; it's designed to take the load off the backs of legitimate distributors of large files. There's nothing stopping the *AA from shutting servers down, and to the best of my knowledge this feature was not created with the intent of making it difficult for anybody to do so. Bittorrent might be optimal for quickly getting large files, but it isn't intended to protect anybody from anything; for that, you'll want to look into
How does it work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does it work? (Score:3, Informative)
Bittorrent isn't intended to protect your identity. It never was. The fact that it's commonly used for activities that might get people in trouble is just due to lack of a poweful, easy-to-use solution in the arena of programs that do protect your identity (see: Freenet [freenetproject.org], Tor [eff.org], and MUTE [slashdot.org]), and possibly in part to bad planning on the part of an increasingly fragmented and confused base of illegal file-sharers.
Great, further adoption (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this really change... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does this really change... (Score:5, Interesting)
If this technology takes off (Score:5, Interesting)
1) **AA will squirm for a while
2) **AA will work harder than before to moniyor and restrict user rights on the internet, via congressional purchasesing, er, I mean lobbying.
I think #2 will ultimately be futile in that it will not slow their loss of control over media content distribution (and copyright violation) but it will make life unpleasant for many...
Cat and mouse at it's best (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this a combat to the death ?
I guess nothing will beat private exchange ? (DRM)
no bittorrent download upgrade option? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a bit surprised that the download for the upgrade didn't have a bittorrent option. Isn't that ironic? or did I miss the link on bittorrent.com?
Re:no bittorrent download upgrade option? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer in all cases is to work around the problem by not storing the code in the format it supports. eg: make comes with a shell script to build the binary. gzip is distributed in
BitTorrent isn't all that large, so there isn't much to be gained by distributing it that way. It's best at file packages in the multi-hundred megabyte and larger range. The largest BT download is only around 1 MB
Won't stop the RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
What's needed is some kind of distributed HTTP overnet that works; that can handle dynamic content semi-intelligently, and MUCH faster than freenet/frost sites.
Re:Won't stop the RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Something like i2p? [i2p.net]
Re:Won't stop the RIAA/MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
so quick question... (Score:3, Interesting)
not sure how it'd work otherwise, but this gives each torrent a single responsible party for its uploading. on the plus side they could limit who has access to the download client tables to people who need it and upload valid.
curious, and no im not just using it for legitimate torrents, but i pay for my cable and id rather keep stuff on my file server than a tivo with a crappy interface.
Since TFA is a bit short on details... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Since TFA is a bit short on details... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Since TFA is a bit short on details... (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like they are both doing nearly the same thing, so if somebody beat you to the punch, why release a slightly different but just different enough to be incompatible implementation of distributed tracking?
Re:Since TFA is a bit short on details... (Score:4, Interesting)
How about encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox bit torrent support (Score:3, Insightful)
Application of DHTs (Score:4, Informative)
If you are interested in how it works, you can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_tab
Even better: Dijjer! (Score:3, Interesting)
Like this it's a distributed publishing system without any sort of tracker, but without torrent files either. In dijjer you make requests from your web browser through a proxy server that's your interface to the rest of the system.
It's different in that all of the data being distributed exists in a single system, not in grouped systems of people interested in the same file. Therefore there's a lot less concern about there being too few peers signed on to make the system work.
Horrible idea as far as product quality goes (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really trackerless (Score:5, Insightful)
This begs the question, why wasn't this beta postponed until its implementation could be made compatible with the already existing distributed tracker implementation in Azureus? Both projects are open source and both are written in high-level programming languages: Python and Java respectively.
Re:How (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How (Score:5, Funny)
There's an A-end and a B-end seperated by some amount of time. Say 1 minute. At the A-end, you start your search for the torrent. The search continues for 60 seconds until the torrent is found at the B-end. The torrent data is then loaded at the B-end which is picked back up at the A-end 60 seconds prior. From your perspective, it happens instantly.
The searches are also modular in design. So you can actually include a second search at the B-end. So at the A-end, you might actually get back a second result for something you didn't even know you searched for.
Don't worry about the noise in the attic. It's just birds.
Re:How (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone confused by the parent should realize it's an allusion to Primer [imdb.com].
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade.
Re:How (Score:5, Informative)
Nodes randomly generate either 128 or 160 bit node identifiers. An identifier uniquely identifies a node on the network. Traditionally, they are computed as just the MD5 or SHA-1 hash of your IP address (this is to make it harder for clients to select exactly what identifier they want, which could help them target certain files for takedown... more on that later).
In Kademlia, the idea is that messages routed through the network are identified by a message key. This is, as well, either a 128 or 160 bit value. The goal of Kademlia, and every other DHT (Google for Chord, CAN, Pastry, etc.) is to route a message to the node whose identifier is "closest" to the message key. In Kademlia, the distance between a node identifier and another node identifier, or a node identifier and a message key, is computed by simply XORing the two and treating the result as an unsigned integer.
Each node maintains (roughly) a routing table containing nodes that match successively-longer high order bits with itself. For example, node 0100... maintains an entry to a node starting with 1..., a node starting with 00..., a node starting with 011..., and a node starting with 0101... Note that in terms of distance by XOR, the first node has a distance of 1..., the second with a distance of 01..., and so forth. Thus, nodes matching more high order bits are closer to you in the identifier space.
So if you are node 1010... and you receive a message starting with 0111... You should have some node in your routing table that differs in the highest-order bit, that is, it starts with 0... Say its node identifier starts with 0000. You route the message to that node. If you compute the XOR between your node identifier and the key, and this node's identifier and the key, you will see that this node is approximately twice as close to the key as you are.
Now this node differs in the second bit: 0000 vs 0111. In its routing table, it must have some node that matches in the first bit, and differs in the second: that is, starting with 01... If the message is routed to that node, we again cut our distance to the key by approximately 1/2. This process repeats until we find the node "closest" to the message key.
Routing in this manner takes log(N) time, and each node on the network maintains log(N) connectivity. Note that there are well-established algorithms for nodes joining and leaving the network, of which the former takes log(N) time as well.
So how does BitTorrent fit in? Here's what I'm assuming: Each
You can do other neat tricks, too, like keyword searching, load balancing, and whatnot (see eMule -- it uses the Kademlia DHT for its serverless system). Other DHTs work in a similar manner. I'm a little confused as to why everyone uses Kademlia, when there are better ones out there. (Accordian [mit.edu], for example, is truly state-of-the-art.)
Plenty of resources on DHTs can be found at Project Iris [project-iris.net].
- shadowmatter
Re:How (Score:4, Funny)
You can also go to Wallmart and ask them if they could put the internet on your floppy disk (warning: you need a floppy disk)
Re:How (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the idea was to make an anonymous torrent; I think it was to make it easier for bloggers and websire owners to post a
Joe Six Pack wih webhosting can now post a
Re:How (Score:3, Informative)
What does this mean? How can you not have access to your own machine?
Anyway, YOU STILL HAVE TO RUN A TRACKER. It's just built in to the client instead of being the program right next to it. It does have minor advantages in traffic generated at the original tracker (which is pretty insignificant anyway), and in being able to resume a download after the original tracker dies. However, you can't start a new download after the tra
Re:How (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How (Score:4, Informative)
Not linux but CC licensed movies (Score:5, Insightful)
But lets say your band releases an album online, or your movie club makes a film... You've only got a geocities website and the desktops of your members.. With tracker-based BT you had to talk someone into running a tracker for you... With tracker-less that limitation has been removed.
Re:wryy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wryy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kinda handy if the tracker goes down. Additionally, if you don't want your torrent to operate in this distributed fashion you flag the torrent to not operate in distributed mode.
It's more like a hydra in this fashion...
Re:wryy (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, now people with shared hosting, blog sites, and free or included web space with their ISP or Yahoo Geocities / Angelfire / etc. (or otherwise are unable to set up a tracker) can now publish videos and other large files with bittorrent without trashing their TOS limits. Sounds legitimate to me. How many of these types of sites has Slashdot shut down by pointing to them?
Re:wryy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a fair-use advocate, but I don't see the legitimate purpose to trackerless torrents that cannot be fulfilled by trackered torrents.
**AA are not the only enemies of free filesharing. That's a very US-centric view of the 'net. What about propagating samizdat literature und news within dictatorships? A trackerless torrent could help save some lifes. Even if it saves only one life, would be well worth it!
Re:wryy (Score:5, Insightful)
Then rather shortsighted you are. If I take a home video and want to share it with my friends and family, previously I would have had to upload it somewhere and spend money on web hosting. Now, with trackerless BT I can easily share this file without having to worry about web hosting or running a tracker. I just have to email the torrent file to people and run a BT client on my machine.
Legitimate file sharing doesn't only include large organisations "sharing" files with their customers/users. There's a whole other side to it as well that you've most conveniently forgotten about in your rush to share your misplaced sarcasm with the world.
Re:wryy (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, the lack of centralized control means that trackerless BT will likely be vulnerable to a new class of attacks that could make it possible to disrupt the download of a file you don't like. So, ironically, warez groups might stick to running trackers for attack resistance and Linux providers might move to trackerless for the scalability. It all depends on how scalable and attack-resistant trackerless downloads turn out to be.
Re:wryy (Score:3, Informative)
It is not clear whether the official BT client work
Re:wryy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Insightful)
It is now easier, though not any more secure, to offer files. The creation of torrents and trackers is now rolled into one - but there's still location information in it.
It's implemented. It doesn't hide your ID, so illegal users still have the same problems.
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Interesting)
I am actually hoping somebody will make a plugin so azureus will act as an i2p router and not have to rely on and externally configured app.
Distributed tracking AND total anonymity let the party begin
How the new Trackerless Protocol works (Score:5, Funny)
client1: gimme the warez
client2: who's askin'?
client1: me, mutherfucka
client2: well, your story checks out - here's da shit.
I know what you're thinking - how will they handle flow control? The trackerless developers also thought of that:
client1: the shit's comin' slow - speed it up
client2: get off my back, bitch
client1: don't make me bust a cap in yo' ass!
client2: all aight, all aight... sheee-it.