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 506515
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: "pure" P2P
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 9th Feb 2012 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "pure" P2P"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, but it still relies on super peers. If the super peers are all down, no one can connect to the other peers. I'm not really sure how you find super peers, but if you can do it, so can those who don't want file sharing. It wouldn't be difficult to just dynamically block access to all/any super peers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: "pure" P2P
by bouhko on Thu 9th Feb 2012 20:53 in reply to "RE[4]: "pure" P2P"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

If you block access to superpeer, some new superpeers emerge. It's kind of easy to get the IP of superpeers published (use some random website, email, twitter, facebook, jabber, whatever you want).

Now, it's going to be really hard to shut down that kind of network. Of course it's possible, but it would requires a freaking huge amount of monitoring and analysis. Plus, most likely, the shutdowners will be one step behind the filesharers, so it's kind of an endless game. So yeah, one of the only way to efficiently shut down such a network would be to just shut down the internet ;)

There was a paper the other day about a protocol that's dynamically morphing so it cannot be recognized by deep packet inspection tools. Add this protocol to Trbiler and you get something really, really strong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: "pure" P2P
by galvanash on Thu 9th Feb 2012 21:26 in reply to "RE[4]: "pure" P2P"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I didn't not get the impression that it "relies" on superpeers. The way I read it was that, in order to solve the bootstrap problem, a small group of "always up" peers would be used to help the network get going.

This simply addresses the bootstrap issue - once you have a working mesh network all it takes to join it is knowing the ip address of a single peer (any peer) and as long as that peer has seen a few other peers your golden. I am assuming clients will "remember" peers they have connected with - so essentially once a client has joined the network it no longer really needs the superpeers at all.

Think of it like the phone network. Superpeers are just 411 (directory services). If you know the number to directory services, you can lookup up phone numbers - but once you know a persons number you don't need 411 anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: "pure" P2P
by Alfman on Fri 10th Feb 2012 00:55 in reply to "RE[4]: "pure" P2P"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

"Ok, but it still relies on super peers. If the super peers are all down, no one can connect to the other peers. I'm not really sure how you find super peers, but if you can do it, so can those who don't want file sharing. It wouldn't be difficult to just dynamically block access to all/any super peers."

That's only if the network requires "super peers" in the first place, If there are no super peer designations, then censorship of the network would require blocking all peers. This may not be impossible, but is much more difficult than blocking a smaller list of super peers.

Requiring a super peer makes the P2P model more of a hybrid than "pure P2P" in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 3