|
Register | FAQ | The Twelve Commandments | Members List | Calendar | Arcade | Find the Best VPN | Today's Posts | Search |
General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion For general discussion about Gnutella and the Gnutella network. For discussion about a specific Gnutella client program, please post in one of the client forums above. |
View Poll Results: Should Gnutella Developers start working on achieving anonymity on Gnutella? | |||
Yes it is of great importance! | 23 | 88.46% | |
NO!I dont care if Gnutella looses lots of its great content! | 3 | 11.54% | |
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
I don't know if this is the appropriate forum, but I'm not a coder and the thread seemed right. My apologizes if the mod feels a need to move it. I wanted to toss out an idea for anominity so that others with more skill could contemplate if it was practical, feasible, too bandwidth consuming, or whatever: 1st, when a file query is received, the receiver never, ever looks at the content of its own hard drive. Instead it queries only its immediate neighbors. Call it a temporary subnet. If the neighbor replies yes it has the file, then rather than connect the requester to the content provider, the middle computer acts as a NAT router to pass the file, but never reveals to the requester the IP addy of the source. If the immediate neighbors all say "No," then the request is passed along to one of the immediate neighbors, a new temp subnet is formed with its neighbors, and the process repeats. And since one of the immediate neighbors is the one that referred it, the hard drive that was originally skipped will get checked as well. Its kind of a mutual denied culpability. Infinately slow? Bandwidth hog? TTL failure ridden? I have no idea. But anyone who asked for a file could potentially receive it. And they'd never know from whence it came. |
| |||
Justin, What you're suggesting is known as "proxying". It would work great but it would also double the amount of 'non-final' traffic, i.e., it would reduce the amount of files that were actually transferred by at least half. |
| |||
If you would just randomly proxy 50% of all connections it would be enough to make finding out the identity of sharers more difficult if you are simply searching for a file and attempting to download it. But even by proxying all connections you won't achieve total anonymity. It would remain trivial to gather enough data to issue 1,000 subpoenas a week just by having 10 or 20 ultrapeers spying on their leafs. |
| |||
Quote:
Quote:
|
| |||
Quote:
|
| |||
Quote:
EDIT: Even if it can be proven, Freenet is so far ahead of the rest of the p2p community with anonymity that the RIAA would never think of trying to sue people using it. Not until all the other p2p programs are as hard to crack as Freenet is. Last edited by zeroshadow; August 6th, 2003 at 02:14 AM. |
| |||
Quote:
True, one judge has ruled that Aimster is liable for contributory copyright-infringement despite it's use of encrypted communications to shield it from knowledge of the contents. But, by that logic, phone companies would be liable for contributory damages anytime a criminal used their phone to plan a crime. What's unique here (aside from the 'distributor' being a community of FreeNet/P2P users) is that the 'source' of a file can't be tracked beyond your immediate proxies. So, I wouldn't worry about legal liability when running a FreeNet node. On the other hand, FreeNet is terrible at distributing large numbers of files, since they have to be cached/proxied by lots of Nodes (most of which will have limited disk-space allocated to caching). ____________________ Better might be the "UDPp2p" project, if they ever post any code... http://udpp2p.sourceforge.net/ |
| ||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| |||
How much of a threat? I have a large library of music (over 2000 songs) and have stopped sharing it because I don't know exactly what I'm risking. I read that one person received an email telling him to stop sharing or else. If the first step is a warning, then is it safe to share until you get one? All the people out there that are turning off their sharing probably are as in the dark about this as I am, and if we knew that we don't have to worry until we get a warning then we'd all be able to share again. But does anyone really know what the tactics of the music industry are right now - and can they really successfully sue us - with no warning? |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Resources for Gnutella Developers | arne_bab | General Gnutella Development Discussion | 1 | May 15th, 2020 08:11 PM |
Anonymity on Gnutella Network | veniamin | General Gnutella Development Discussion | 27 | July 21st, 2002 10:58 AM |
Warning to Gnutella developers: Design a system of anonymity or Gnutella is doomed | Unregistered | General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion | 16 | June 28th, 2002 07:54 AM |
General Gnutella Developers | Moak | General Gnutella Development Discussion | 31 | April 7th, 2002 11:15 AM |
Gnutella doesn't work | Sergio | General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion | 1 | April 12th, 2001 11:06 PM |