Finally Real P2P With Brains 237
dfelznic writes: "The mp3 archives of CodeCon are now availble, which is news in itself. But what makes this real interesting is that they are being distributed by BitTorrent. BitTorrent allows users to download a file from multiple different people. Instead of everyone nailing one server, users get the file from other users. Furthurnet uses a similar technology to distribute legal bootlegs of concerts. The archive is available at the BitTorrent demo downloads page. As soon as I started downloading (cable modem) at around 300k I got a request for the file and began uploading at 40k. This could be the answer to the slashdot effect;) Now, who is going to be the first to complain about the use of mp3s instead of oggs?"
Nice. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice. (Score:1)
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice BUT.... (Score:1)
Re:Nice BUT.... (Score:2, Interesting)
MD5 is *not* suitable for ensuring that two files are identical when a malicious user is involved. It *is* suitable for ensuring that a malicious user may not hand you anything that passes but pure garbage (given what we know about MD5 today).
CRC32 is totally unsuitable for any environments that could involve malicious users.
SHA is the only common hash appropriate for this sort of problem.
Re:Nice BUT.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I challenge you to find me any two sets of data with the same md5.
Re:Nice BUT.... (Score:2)
*shrugs*... the truth is truth whether or not you provide references. But if you want references, check out RSA's own FAQ [rsasecurity.com]. MD4 is definitely broken, and MD5 might have some significant weaknesses. It's likely to be brute forceable with reasonable resources.
Re:Nice. (Score:2)
NudeCheerleader(part1).mpeg isn't going to be the same as NudeCheerleader(part1).mpeg
This is where a good hashing algorithm would be great, e.g. md5 hashes to determine if different users have the same item. This seems mandatory, they'd be silly not to have something like this in place
eDonkey hashes files (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of good things about eDonkey, there is also forced uploads, meaning no losers cutting your downloads on you.
Re:Nice. (Score:2)
Then download both! You will have to visually inspect the contents of both to really tell if they are same or not. It's called "research".
edonkey2k (Score:2, Informative)
^^very true^^ (Score:2, Informative)
-jason m
Re:edonkey2k (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My experience with BitTorrent (Score:2, Informative)
Am I missing something? (Score:1)
And with filesharing, Kazaa/Grokster?
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Last time I checked, Kazaa does this, but not well. It doesn't seem to be very intelligent about choosing what connections are good (and therefore should be given more of the file to download after they finish a currently-assigned chunk) and what connections are bad (and therefore should be dropped, not let to continue at 0.01K/sec!).
[ On a side note, GetRight allowed for more control over where to download from (and did allow multiple sources, last time I used it -- about a year+ ago). It fact, I used GetRight to download linux ISOs from multiple sources at once :). ]
Anyway, does this system offer *better* multi-connection filesharing (ie, more intelligent?), or does it keep slow connections, and fail to recognize that a fast connection just finished and should be given more of the file to download?
Been there done that... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you say p2p with brains, to me it means somebody has come up with a elegant balance between centralization and search speeds.
Re:Been there done that... (Score:2)
Next time I run into something EDonkey doesn't have, I'll have to try out Bearshare.
Re:Been there done that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ditto, Holmes. The real question is the scalability issue [darkridge.com], and I'm not convinced that the traffic cop features implemented by Gnutella front-ends have really sorted this out.
When that's the case, that will be some p2p with brains. Right now, the networks only seem to be hanging on because the critical mass of crash-inducing traffic hasn't hit the super-peers yet [com.com]; at least not on the permanent basis.
What would really make my evening interesting is if someone would be kind enough to contradict me.
Re:Been there done that... (Score:2, Interesting)
And this is new? (Score:5, Informative)
Peer broadcasting is hardly something to write /. about, I'd say.
Re:And this is new? (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology is nothing spectacular, but it's nice to see a simple install method that integrates nicely into the browser.
One interesting side-effect of this implementation is that there is no searching. You only download stuff from BitTorrent if you find a link on a web page for it. However, without the requirement for searching, Freenet would be a great replacement for this role of browser-download accellerator. All you really need to do to implement this would be to provide a nice installation
Re:And this is new? (Score:1)
Again, edonkey already does this. Has for a while. I imagine the other mentioned programs can as well.
What makes BitTorent new is they are actually trying to get it used for a legitimate application instead of just arguing that "people could use it for something other than piracy".
Now, I don't know how long BitTorent has been around, but it appears not to be new (too many "I can download foo real fast with it" comments to think it's just out). This is possibly not their original goal and really just something to point at if a lawyer comes calling (or to try and get VCs to come calling).
Re:And this is new? (Score:2, Informative)
From the author's site [bitconjurer.org]:
Re:And this is new? (Score:2)
You can still use fproxy to access freenet through a web browser, so I suppose you could use a http link to the fproxy presumably running on your user's localhost, but that's somewhat broken and unlikely to catch on.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:And this is new? (Score:5, Informative)
eDonkey likewise is more of a filesharing (aka, keyword search, then dowload hits) method.
Swarmcast is the closest relative to BitTorrent, but BitTorrent avoids the FEC encoding and cryptographically secure block verification in favor of a more centrally controlled broker that uses multi source downloading at various offsets to accomplish the same task.
In short, BitTorrent is a distribution system where a central server provides content, and peers requesting that content join a mulitsource downloading group where they also share offsets of data with each other (preferably) and download from the central server when necessary.
This isnt file sharing (really), this is content distribution in a fast and effective manner using peer networking concepts.
Re:And this is new? (Score:2, Informative)
Just wanted to know where BitTorrent stood in the grand scheme of things.
Re:And this is new? (Score:2)
Regarding eDonkey, they provide no detailed information on how they implement multisource downloads, so it may be that they are actually very similiar. Who knows.
Lastly, swarmcast is designed for larger decentralized peer networks where no central broker is present. In that scenario FEC and cryptographically secure block transfer make sense, but its a lot of overhead for simply transferring a file. I dont see how your can say BitTorrent is potentially slower. BitTorrent will be faster, as it avoids that overhead entirely, and has a centralized broker/server to fall back on.
first to complain about the use of mp3s... (Score:1)
:-)
Free! (Score:1)
customers online....
The key to cheap file distribution is to tap the unutilized upload capacity of your customers. It's free.
Emphasis theirs.
Free to who? You? Maybe not them. Nothing is free. I like the idea, but I really don't like the way they are selling it.
Re:Free! (Score:2)
yep (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Lossless - big files - Bittorrent helps a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lossless - big files - Bittorrent helps a lot (Score:2)
so, about 320kbps. Sounds about right for the postings I've seen lately.
eDoneky dudes! (Score:2)
BitTorrent allows users to download a file from multiple different people. Instead of everyone nailing one server, users get the file from other users.
eDonkey [edonkey2000.com] does one better. Even if you only have parts of the file downloaded, you can immediately send parts of the file you do have to other users. And eDonkey has had a pretty good track record. I thought everyone and their mother knows about this, so why was this a Slashdot headline, especially when it's pretentious and untruthful?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:eDoneky dudes! (Score:2, Informative)
eDonkey's developers are aware of the network's current strain and are implementing a new p2p method for the next version.
It is NOT a p2p Network people! (Score:5, Informative)
So say you start downloading the latest Counterstrike patch from some server. Well you know how servers giving out the CS patch get filled up quickly.
Well if the users were running this program (plugins to IE, no restart neccisary, look if there is a {browser here} version yourself!) then when they started downloading somebody ELSE could start downloading FROM them.
No file synch issues (same file, same source) the server just re-directs future downloaders to current downloads and has the original downloaders forward the files along.
It's not a IE plugin (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It is NOT a p2p Network people! (Score:2)
and nobody told me !!!
I'm gonna get it on kazaa
Wasn't Marc Anderseen's Company... (Score:2, Informative)
Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2, Offtopic)
1) Response Time
To make this work you need more than a fancy P2P network. Remember site like slashdot are database backed and update very quickly. Sure slashdot caches pages, but many things like user preferences and comments are updated way to quickly for a P2P network too distribute it.
2) Security
Yes you can encypt, but who other than a hobbist is going to put the content that represents them on several machine at once and expose themselves to someone breaking it. If someone was successful they could do things like change the slashdot homepage for those they are distributing to. You cannot be a credible source and distribute yourself like that.
3) Slashcode (yeah I know, slashdot specific)
Have any of you actually read slashcode? I'll tell you what, it is damn complicated. There is no way a simple patch is going to make a site like this distributable. The entire thing would need redesigned, which is no small job. I'd say that this would be the case for any database backed site as well.
4) Databases
Since I mentioned a few times already, I think I'll point out the flaw here. Name one database system that is able to handle and organic network of servers (ie constantly going up and down), keep all the data available, keep all the data available on a resonable connection (not behind 56k lines), give the response time you need, doesn't take up huge amounts of systems resources, and can easily be set up on one of the P2P nodes by even a reasonably competent user. Oh that's right none, and you have to have that in order to have a dynamic site on a P2P network, which is a huge portion of the web at this point.
Well, that's all I can think off right now on this, but I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why this isn't feasible in the near future.
Cheers
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2)
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea was to help sites that GET linked to BY Slashdot.
You know, those small user pages with some cool casemod on it?
This network would allow viewers of the site to download the images from EACH OTHER instead of from the main server.
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2)
I may be incorrect, but couldn't this scenario be remedied by FreeNet? Doesn't FreeNet distribute and cache popular content all over the place?
If the Slashdotters won't support FreeNet, nobody will.
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:1)
Scales Best for small number of large files. (Score:2)
Also, because you're typically downloading a few tens to hundreds of megabyte chunks, you're a useful server for 90-99% of the time you're downloading, rather than the Freenet model where you're only useful *after* you've finished downloading the stuff you want. So instead of a long-term persistent set of users who always want stuff, BitTorrent is designed for temporary communities of people who want stuff Right Now, and it doesn't depend on them hanging around being useful after they've got what they want. (So you can download the latest release of a Debian ISO and then go install it without feeling like you're depriving the community by taking your machine offline.)
BitTorrent might be able to manage larger numbers of smaller files, e.g. a Slashdot event, but I haven't looked lately, and it's more interesting for the bigger things. (Of course, some slashdotting problems aren't file retrievals, but server interactions, like that one-IC web server powered by a potato battery, and it doesn't have anything to offer for that :-)
Re:Scales Best for small number of large files. (Score:2)
I do not know how well it scales (hell I have gotten 10 karma points today just for spending 2 f*cking minutes at the site, if even that long. The site has all of 5 or so small pages to it. . . . LOL! ), or how the connections are handled.
It does NOT appear help with keeping users anon though, naturally not I would think that it shares IPs like mad, LOL!
"Dumb" file resuming methods (like the one Direct Connect) uses does not need for the person serving the file to have the entire thing, often times I will download the first 300 megs or so of a file from one user and then wait a few weeks until somebody comes along who has the complete file.
By coincidence I have about 15GB of 1/2 done *COUGH* files *COUGH* on my HD. . . . (no, not MP3s, bleh!
But it does work a bit better then those stupid systems that keep record of where files are to leave off and what not.
Of course one big disadvantage of not having any sort of file integrity checking is that when a SINGLE mistake is made in a file transfer and the rest of the transfer is completed, that mistake can spread throughout the network expontentialy.
There is actualy a corrupted copy of the Yu Yu Hakusho movie that was going around p2p programs for 2 years, and very well MAY BE STILL going around on the networks, that I started passing out on VNN2000 (any other VNN2000 fans out there? I know there are, I first got linked to it from a persons
On VNN2000 I was one of the few (at times only) user with that file, so. . . . by the time I realized my mistake I:
A: Decided screw it I may get around to fixing it some day
B: Technicaly it is just a few bytes so anybody who REALLY wanted to get the data could boot up a hex editor and fix things. . . . if they had insansly large amounts of hex editing skills.
The error was actualy caused by a 'known but WTF is causing it????" bug in VNN2000 that resulted in minor file corruptions at times when resumed files were appended to each other. (I forget the exact details, the bug popped up a number of times, once I do believe it added some of the network code to the end of the file, oops. No, 'close connection'[1] isn't a valid part of an MPEG4 encoded AVI frame, just ask WMP.
{caveman ugh footnotes}
[1] Me no bothering to look up WTF this would have really been, you worry, you get bin code, {/end caveman ugh}
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2)
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2)
Re:Will not help the slashdot effect (Score:2)
Do you even know what the slashdot effect is?
This has nothing to do with changing slashdot itself, it's about the possibility of using software to help distribute the load that slashdot dumps on third party web sites when their home page becomes the subject of a hot story. Slashdot readers could become temporary mirrors for the links.
BitTorrent (Score:5, Informative)
eDonkey has the same feature (with some differences in the publishing process), but is really an application of its own, very file sharing oriented, closed-source and banner-supported. Not exactly what a content provider would want users to download before they can access his files. Still, ed2k has the advantage of a large user base, and also supports ed2k:// URIs that can be used on webpages.
SwarmCast is interesting, but the company behind it mostly died, and now it is somewhat in limbo. Its Java base has made it problematic as a desktop application. The only real alternative to BT is Mojo Nation, which is currently being reworked as "MNet".
If you want to know what CodeCon is all about, check the Feature box on infoAnarchy, we had some detailed coverage.
Re:BitTorrent (Score:2)
all the reports i see during a
sysadmin: "don't tell me, we've got a new stable kernel release being posted in an hour?"
Marcelo: "yep"
sysadmin: "/. effect coming 3 seconds after its posted?"
Marcelo: "most likely"
sysadmin: "bring it on!"
Re:BitTorrent (Score:2)
Re:BitTorrent (Score:2)
as a wild guess, say their fat pipe is costing 5k per month. how many starving kernel developers is that going help out? are there really people who are large contributers to the kernel that also have troubles finding a day job?
Re:BitTorrent (Score:2)
Heh. You don't really want to know the answer to that question :-)
Re:BitTorrent (Score:2)
What about Gnunet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kazaa/Morpheous/eDonkey compairisons (Score:3, Informative)
This solution is different in a few very large aspects. It allows a company to keep track of who is currently downloading a file from their webserver. This information is then sent to the clients who can start the P2P poriton of the process and download segments of the file from other users, releaving the load on the companies server. In contrast to those other P2P FILE SHARING programs which share all your files not just ones you are currently downloading. A system like this makes the file server not only the original source for that file but the P2P server to find other people to download that ONE file from.
I can see where people may not want their upload bandwidth being used by others. For this reason any site implementing this feature would probably end up having to provide the file for normal download. The selling point would be a possibly faster download for users of the technology.
I would personally love to see huge sites like FilePlanet put this to use. Granted it would only be truely usefull for sites that have a constant stream of concurrent downloads for a file at any point in time but it would be much better than having to wait 2 hours in line to download a file
Re:Kazaa/Morpheous/eDonkey compairisons (Score:1)
Well yeah. Otherwise how would it get started?
Unreasonable requirement, unwanted feature (Score:2)
Re:Unreasonable requirement, unwanted feature (Score:1)
However its popularity decreases rapidly throughout its life.
The demand for a file may be incredibly high during the first hour of its life, stay high for a day and then start decreasing rapidly as it becomes 'old news' and more widely available.
For example, a trailer for the new Star Wars film may take an hour to download and be in huge demand. The next day, the demand is less concentrated since it has been on television, all the hardcore fans downloaded it the second it was available, etc.
Being able to start the upload before it has downloaded takes enormous pressure off of the sites that have the complete file.
It may be an unreasonable requirement, but I'm sure it is not an unwanted feature.
Actually reasonable requirement, useful feature (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, it makes it very efficient for the first set of people who are downloading the file. Instead of having to download the whole thing from one source, which is probably overloaded, you're able to download pieces from lots of different people. The server takes advantage of this - instead of giving Alice chunks 1, 2, 3,
This also reduces the latency required for later people in the process to get their material - instead of waiting for the entire 600MB CD to be copied N times in a row, the downloading gets pipelined.
Red Swoosh (Score:2, Interesting)
Gnutella clients already do this (Score:2)
ToDo list: handle more than a dozen downloads (Score:1)
better scaling/performance
BitTorrent currently scales well to a dozen or so simultaneous downloads. With further modifications, it can be made to scale to thousands.
A dozen or so simulataneous downloads? Dont think that is going to help prevent the slashdor effect. Though I guess that is getting tested right now!
They'll need to release Netscape plug-ins (Score:1)
A dozen or so simulataneous downloads? Dont think that is going to help prevent the slashdor effect.
Slashdot linked sites that use BitTorrent technology will respond an order of magnitude faster, and that's never a bad thing. However, it might not exactly ease slashdottings until they release a Netscape plug-in for all major operating systems, as a larger than average proportion of Slashdot readers use Mozilla and non-Windows desktop environments.
multiple identical different same distinct (Score:5, Funny)
BitTorrent allows users to download a file from multiple different people.
Or if you're downloading the latest boy band single: multiple identical people.
Not good for asymmetrical connections? (Score:2)
I have a 1184/160kbs asymmetric (DSL) connection. This seems like a common ratio with many ISPs these days. A full speed download consumes at least a fith of my upstream bandwidth. Presumably that's due to things like TCP ACKs. Any kind of serious upstream activity squeezes things and can quickly reduce a download to half speed. I can't find the concept described very useful, especially if I'm in a rush to get something. Is there a way to throttle upstream bandwidth consumption?
edonkey? (Score:2)
linky linky [edonkey2000.com]
Last form of fail-safe antipiracy crumbles (Score:1)
This represents a key-step in issuing in the new era of "freeware."
Toronto area radio station doing this (sorta) (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to hear peoples's experiences (Score:5, Informative)
So far, this looks like it's going pretty well. Any and all feedback is much appreciated, and will hopefully help make BitTorrent an even better product. Please mail me [mailto] about your experiences.
Re:I'd like to hear peoples's experiences (Score:3, Informative)
2. I'm behind a NAT. May it be possible to configure an incoming-connections port?
3. Very Various. At The Moment it's 30 K/s down (max 90 k/s) and 7 k/s up (max 14 k/s).
4. No problems! Plugged in pefectly into IE.
Very good work so far. I'll try to set up set up some files later.
X
My NAT configuration. (Score:2)
(the reason I'm doing this is mostly because all I need the NAT box for is to share a single IP, and having a real firewall on that got to be too much of a hassle with things like Starcraft and Quake) The NAT box is a P100 running FreeBSD 4.3-Release with natd and ipfw. More interesting is that my NAT box is currently behind *another* NAT box that acts as the gateway router for my ADSL service, also running FreeBSD. (I work for my ISP, which is why I know this
When my download started from the site, it was at ~150Kbps. (pretty much the max for my 1.5M/640K ADSL) It slowed down a little as the upstream bandwidth went up, but that was fine, as it consistently stayed at over 100Kbps.
I have a question though. How the hell is it that my upload is working at all? I'm on a network so private that it's scary.
Re:My NAT configuration. (Score:3, Interesting)
Upload/Download ratios and ADSL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upload/Download ratios and ADSL (Score:3, Informative)
As to whether being on ADSL makes you 'guilty' I don't know, it's very non-judgemental software :-)
Re:Upload/Download ratios and ADSL (Score:2, Interesting)
Additionally, maxing out my upload kills downloads entirely, all the way to timeouts (cable connection) - turns out that if I cap uploads at about 5/6 max upload speed, I get normal looking download speed. But another 2k upload and downloads die completely. Looking at the comments further up this page, I can see that other people have had this problem and some have found solutions, so I'll take a look at some of those. But perhaps it wouldn't be an entirely bad idea to consider allowing people to cap uploads at something less than the absolute maximum speed, since otherwise, at least in my case, this software is about as much use as a DOS attack.
Cheers.
Re:Upload/Download ratios and ADSL (Score:2)
Same problem here.
I've got RR cable (2Mbps down / 384kbps up) - and as I approach my ~50K/s upload cap, my dl rate suffers a lot, since the ACK's are bottlenecked...
bearshare, edonkey, and other apps are aware of this problem, and allow you to 'cap your cap' by restricting the ul rate; BitTorrent should do the same.
--
Re:Upload/Download ratios and ADSL (Score:2)
(If I could cap that 50K to 30K, my dl speed would jump to 240K - allowing others to grab a greater selection of file chunks from me (ala edonkey2k))
--
bootlegs : recordings :: crackers : hackers (Score:3, Informative)
- A.P.
Re:bootlegs : recordings :: crackers : hackers (Score:3, Informative)
bootleg:
1. To make, sell, or transport (alcoholic liquor) for sale illegally.
2. To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally: a clandestine outfit that bootlegs compact discs and tapes.
it was very hard to find someone using the term bootleg to not mean anything more than a live recording though. lots of people call even a bands released live album a bootleg. here's another definition i found, sorry no link, i could only get it on google cache:
"When someone tapes a show, that is called a live recording. When a company releases an unauthorized copy of that show, that is called a "bootleg". Bootlegs are usually found in compact disc form. However, a CD can only hold approximately 78 m inutes of recording time, forcing the bootlegger to cut songs out of long shows. In essence, a live recording will maintain the original, unadulterated full show while a bootleg version will have songs missing. In fact, they may even be out of order.
When individuals trade live recordings, no money is transferred or involved. However, when someone buys a bootleg, someone is making money--and usually a lot of money--off music that someone else wrote and performed."
Still needs Work (Score:1)
I'm not saying this thing is busted just that it certainly seems that this guys request for more money to work on it is obviously nessesary. Oh, well, I was hoping I could get one program to work tonight even it it wasn't one I have been slaving over for the past week. I guess my computer karma is kinda low right now.
"chaining" is DIFFERENT than "swarming" (Score:5, Interesting)
What bitTorrent (I think) and furthurnet (I know) are doing is different than this. If 5 people are downloading a file from the one person who is sharing it, those 5 people can be the beginning of 5 chains of people, relaying each packet down the chain as they get it, regardless of whether or not anyone has the complete file.
Furthurnet uses a protocol called PCP (Packet Chain Protocol) to do this, and it automatically arranges the chains so that those with faster upload speeds are toward the top, with the dialup users toward the bottom.
If the main host goes offline, even if no one on the chain has the entire file, everyone on the chain can still continue downloading everything that the topmost person on the chain has already saved.
A good example: say a dialup user has large file that is in high demand. A T1 user comes along and spends a long time downloading it off of the dialup users horrible upload speed, and gets about 80% of it before anyone else comes to download. Then you show up with your cable connection and instead of being at the mercy of the upload speed of the dialup guy, you have access to 80% of the file from the plentiful upload speed from the T1 guy. And of course Furthur knows to hook you up to the fastest open slot available when you come along.
The result of this is that the underlying host and network shape becomes transparent, and you just see a list of shows to download, you start downloading one, and all this stuff happens in the background. The longer everyone stays connected to the network, the more efficient it comes because it has more time to structure it with the faster folks in the "middle", and the slower ones on the "outside".
Over at furthurnet, the current record is having 71 people on a downloading chain. Combine PCP with the Anteloping and you can have some serious improvement over "dumb" p2p.
I wont even go into the benefits of the md5 checking furthur does...
Xolox (gnutella) been doing that for a year now! (Score:2)
Re:Xolox (gnutella) been doing that for a year now (Score:2)
Re:"chaining" is DIFFERENT than "swarming" (Score:2, Informative)
BitTorrent also makes extensive use of checksums, in what I'm guessing is the same way furthurnet does.
It's actually not too surprising that BitTorrent and furthurnet have a lot of similar features - they were both designed with etree in mind as a primary customer.
They know about /. effect... (Score:2, Funny)
I just love this, especially on a site thats about how to handle bandwith
wouldn't an Apache plugin for this be great? (Score:2)
Think about something like this: if you were running a site under Apache and had the option of installing a plug-in that would participate in the file sharing network as a server node. The plug-in would let you allocate a defined amount of disk storage and a defined amount of bandwidth. Then sysadmins who felt this was a good thing could just turn on their participation.
Sure it wouldn't be much at first, but you might get a very large base of servers with good connectivity all playing a role in the system. I think it would help it scale.
Just a thought. I wonder if anyone has considered a scheme like this.
for chrissakes read the site before you post! (Score:2)
Having said that, most of these comments are ignorant tripe. Before you post, you might want to take a look at the site and read about what actually goes on in BitTorrent. This will help you avoid looking like an ignoranus.
MojoNation (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot needs this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:mp3s are better than oggs for me... (Score:2)
Of course, they're also still in development, so Vorbis has that against it. But don't give up on it yet.