Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Feb 2012 23:15 UTC
Internet & Networking "While the file-sharing ecosystem is currently filled with uncertainty and doubt, researchers at Delft University of Technology continue to work on their decentralized BitTorrent network. Their Tribler client doesn't require torrent sites to find or download content, as it is based on pure peer-to-peer communication. 'The only way to take it down is to take the Internet down,' the lead researcher says." In a way, the efforts by Hollywood and the corrupt US Congress is actually increasing the resiliency of peer-to-peer technology. Karma.
Thread beginning with comment 506474
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: "pure" P2P
by galvanash on Thu 9th Feb 2012 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE: "pure" P2P"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

In practice, the freenet darknet between anonymous users is practically useless because users go to a clear IRC channel to exchange peer lists, which is far less secure than the previous freenet since it leaks even more information than before. And it tends to create very long if not completely broken routes between members who exchange peer information in the IRC channels at different times.


I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's take on this subject.


Darknets for file sharing are simply trust networks - they are only as trustworthy as the people you let into them. As such, it is all rather pointless to me, since they eventually succumb to their own popularity - once you reach the point that you no longer know everyone you can no longer trust it.

Its fine to a point for a small group of peers who actually do know each other - but then you never really gain the advantages you have with large P2P networks (namely diverse content and multiple seeders to speed up downloads).

Tribler does not seem to even try to behave like a darknet. There is no address anonymity as far as I can see - it is simply decentralized. You would of course need a few "superpeers" to bootstrap things, but once it got going it would be self-maintaining. That is the point I think - not address anonymity. It's not really anything like Freenet, where anonymity is actually the primary goal.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: "pure" P2P
by Alfman on Thu 9th Feb 2012 11:15 in reply to "RE[2]: "pure" P2P"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

galvanash,

"That is the point I think - not address anonymity. It's not really anything like Freenet, where anonymity is actually the primary goal."

Yes, I was trying to highlight the two different levels of anonymity using freenet as an example. A decentralized P2P network shouldn't be a "darknet" if it's to be scalable. However it's still possible to protect the privacy of the traffic so third parties don't know what's being transfered between known peers.

Reply Parent Score: 2