Point taken. However, I don't think our goals are mutually exclusive. You want more annonynimity, and I want to be able to see whether or not people who are taking up space in my upload que are actually sharing files with other people. Fine. If we can make the file sharing process anonymous, we can certainly make the list of files shared anonymous.

My understanding is that future versions of gnutelliums will provide an increased degree of anonymity in the file transfer process. Of course, no p2p protocol can be totally anonymous, and an experienced hacker will be able to tell who is who and what is what, no matter what privacy measures are added to the protocol. Still, if they can tighten the anonymity on file transfers so that a casual user can't figure out exactly who or where you are, they should be able to do the same thing with file lists.

Quote:

You seem to think that you should have the ability to inspect the shared file library of every user that requests a download. Then you can put those worthless freeloaders in thier place, Right? OK, maybe you could stop a few uploads to users whose share library doesn't meet your criteria, but you may very well be the only person still sharing anything.

I doubt it. There are plenty of people sharing files now, and most of those who are sharing also have their lists available via a web interface. I don't see why those people would stop sharing simply because it's easier to view that list

Quote:

Most of us know big brother (Metallica) is watching, and are not inclined to declare the entire contents of our shared file library with every download request. IMHO you would see more sharing if the security and anonymity of the network were improved, not relaxed. We don't need any more netcops, modified version or not.

Heh ... let's face it, Metallica ain't that smart. Maybe MS is, but I doubt it. They're interested in keeping an eye on gnutella atm, but I doubt they see it as a serious enough threat to start going after individual users on a large enough scale to affect the network. And the truth is, if more people were sharing files, they wouldn't be able to if they tried. The biggest threat to the network is from within, not from the outside.

Quote:

As I am sure You are well aware, with every implementation of this sort You are faced with the prospect of people trying to beat the system. Well I could take a screenshot, encrypt it, multiple copy it,wrap it all up in a zip and rename it to something like "Metallicas_ Favorite_One.MP3". Great!, now I have a legal, self-made 5MB file that fits your criteria. After I've done this numerous times,using differend file sizes and names, I would seem to have a portfolio even the most judgemental would deem worthy. What's even worse is the fact that other users would download these bogus files and leave them in thier shared folder for no telling how long befor they are finally deleted, all the while sharing them with even more users. We don't want to give people any incentive to try something like this. Just look at what is happening now with the fact that some clients and users give preference to other users with more than a set number of shared files. We are getting reports of an enormous number of files avialable, but without the expected increase in MBs. People are putting irrelevent files in thier share folder just to pad the file count. These irrelevent files all have names and thus are prone to returning bugus finds to legit searches, needlessly driving up network bandwidth.

Yeah, well, there will always be those attempting to break the system. That's part of the reason gnutella exists in the first place. But let's face something else: most freeloaders ain't this smart either. Those who are already padding their file counts will continue to do so. Those who aren't padding aren't likely to start simply because of my suggestion being implimented. My "system" wouldn't provide any *added* incentive to go through all the trouble you've described.

Bogus files are something that you have to deal with if you're going to use this system. And so are freeloaders. While we can't totally eliminate freeloaders, we can discourage the activity. That's what I'm suggesting we do here.

Quote:

Just a thought, not necessarily meant as flamebait.

Normally, when I see this in a post, I automatically assume that it *is* indeed flamebait. I was pleasantly surprised.