Why don't eliminate the IP of queryhits, and therefore use only "Push" to initiate downloads?, so there is no way to poll Gnet analyzing query trafic to detect big sharers.

Of course a sharer could be located by sending a push and waiting the download, but this would be a lot costly that simply reading queryhits, since any sharer need to be requested one by one.

Additionally a sharer could use any proxy system to relay the file when pushed, so the anonymaty is more complete.

Perhaps you've noticed, but Push routes disappear fairly quickly. If only one node in the entire push route disappears, then you can't use Push anymore. Also, you need to keep the push route longer too - given the huge number of Query Hits passing each node, that's a lot of info you need to retain.

I was heard about the deficient delivery of pong messages, so I am glad you make some criticizing about that issue, cause I didn't have it clear. Thanks.

I suppose that most pushes have been lost due to limitations in the serven-id routing tables. Since ultrapeers mostly have good uptime I think that would be very rare to lose a push path due to a node quitting.

I propose a solution for the routing problem: what if the queryhits save its own route?. This would work this way:

1. Each ultrapeer assign a 1 Byte number to each connection it have. So a ultrapeer A which have 3 connections begin with connections 0,1 and 2. If for example host "1" quits, and then A connect to other host, that ultrapeer A will have connections number 0,2 and 3. And so on and so forth until it reach 255, then obviously it revert to 0, but it could take a time.

2. Each ultrapeer save its routing in the queryhit adding its host number where the message arrived. So a queryhit with 7 hops only need 6 bytes of routing information.

3 Then the Push include that and it could be route reading this information backwards by each node. Of course, if a node quits, its route number disappear in its predecessor and it's not possible to complete the route, but like I said that this would be a rare case.

What do you think about it?.

What about the anonymizing queryhits issue?, do you think could be useful?.

Again this goes back to the simple point that you only need anonymity if you plan on breaking a law [IE, downloading illegal material].

Hello!

Gamer do not be hypocritical!.I can see that you have made alot of Posts here on a short amount of time even slightly more then I have.This must mean that you are a very dedicated to Gnutella and a Heavy user of it.And since most of the stuff out there is Copyrighted material it must mean that you are according to yourself a criminal.

I can think of alot of reasons to improve on Anonymity on Gnutella.What about the bare future existense of Gnutella is that reason enough?.

Many develpers realise that the future existence and development of Gnutella are at risk and are therefore working on these issues right now and BearShare was the first to impliment some new security features such as Evil Host detection and Secure Channels for uploads.And more such functions will probably come in the near future.

By the way just plain downloading of Copyrighted material is not to be considered illegal since no such case has been settled in a Court of law.Only Sharing is considered Illegal but ofcourse I do not agree with that redicilus law enforcement accomplished by the big record companys big efforts and money in lobying.

__________________
<img src="http://www.jordysworld.de/emoticons/blob16.gif">Sincerely Joakim Agren!

I don't think that you are hiding nothing by don't sending your ip in queryhits (you will show it when downloading), so it is not needed to think that you broke any law. It could be justified as a protocol enhancement that establish a simple single way for firewalled and not-firewalled host.