I suspect one of a number of contributory reasons for people refusing to share files on the network are the "How to connect with LimeWire" blogs on the web. Almost all say "Do not share files under any circumstances" and to disable partial-file sharing, whereas I have seen at least one say if you choose to share copyright files then share them at your own risk. There are a lot of people who read these blogs and are no doubt immediately influenced by them.

Problem is, this means people are refusing to share files no matter what the status of the files. Where a person is sharing mostly or all non-copyright files, people are still refusing to share them after downloading due to the above type of influence and/or due to selfish arrogance.

If around or more than 99% of all users on the network are not sharing files, then it leaves a lot of pressure upon those who do share files.

Some gnutella apps allow a host to see how many files a host is sharing. It is amazing the number of hosts who don't share. The Lime based programs, particularly LPE and WireShare appear to be big culprits due to their larger numbers. But many users of all gnutella apps are guilty of "Freeloading" from the network.

People want something from the network yet are not willing to give anything back, not even the same file they downloaded.

Let's look at the torrent sharing world in comparison: I have seen torrents die within a month of posting because all who downloaded the file were freeloaders and refused to share back (seed) after finishing, thus totally destroying the entire share cycle.
You can see how 'freeloaders' can destroy file-sharing.

I have seen torrents where anywhere up to 250 hosts were stuck in an incomplete file download status of anywhere up to 99% of the file and unable to finish downloading the file.
Q: Who was to blame?
A: Far too many freeloaders not willing to seed (share) the file back to at least a ratio of 1:1 or higher.

So what is the solution?
Anybody wish to offer one?

Education of the sharing cycle and its importance might help. But how many people would really care.

Out of curiosity, who does more damage to the file-sharing networks? Anti p2p file-sharing BOTs or Freeloaders?

There is such a concept as private torrents. One thing a person can appreciate about that environment is knowing all are file-sharing and freeloaders simply cannot exist there.

One thing that has blown me away is the decline in information sharing on these networks. With web search engine results returning many commercialized links, p2p network used to be great for returning all kinds of document results. From medicine and garden tips, to anti-government and spirituality; these network used to be excellent sources of information. Even simple HTML files. With some of the content being "infringing", you never really heard anyone getting a letter from their ISP for sharing a romance novel.

I wonder how bad it would hurt the network if clients had the option to deny connection from other clients that didn't meet a users set min share (like the min share on a DC++ hub)? A stipulation would be that a user would have to be share at least as much as their min share setting.

Limit the upload speed to the point that people will become unhappy and realize that the file needs seeders (them) to support the sharing? When they see the high speed, they may think that their seeding is not needed.

With tons of people using VPNs today, I don't know if this is as much a
problem anymore. People can ignore all the blogs telling you not to
share anything. Likely the problem has more to do with smart phones, as
the norm for personal computing. There have been gnutella apps for
phones in the past. I haven't checked, but I doubt there is much of that
today. Most older p2p networks (like Winmx) have a lot of enthusiasts
using them. Plenty are happy to share their bandwidth, since in many
cases they aren't themselves downloading things. They just want to
support whats left of their shrinking network.

But to back up your point a little, I bet those long time users (of any
network) seeding files, they think are rare/special, get tickled pink
when they see someone has downloaded one and stays on adding another
seed to the small cult.

Gnutella is still my favorite network. But when I look back on when I
enjoyed it the most, it was before the advent of file hashes and
multi-source downloads. But that's from a old time Napster, DC++, and
IRC user. Hashing files improved the whole thing by leaps and bounds.
But at the same time it and DHT (distributed hash tables) eventually
made it a third rate Bittorrent and a second rate Emule (Kademlia).

Its ironic that hashing files is also something that caused a huge boost
in copyright troll letters. Maybe because hashing caused a huge increase
in efficient file sharing; which it did do. But I tend to believe that
file hashing made it too easy for copyright lawyers to know exactly what
file you downloaded, and how many people you helped get it too. It was
one thing to send someone a letter asking for the cost of a movie or
song, because they really watched you good and caught you red handed.
But is was quite another sending you a letter asking for all the
potential profit they may have lost. Not only from you not paying for
the file, but also for all the people you provided the same freedom to.

The Gnutella developers did a really good job of making the network
scale better and increasing the exacting power of the search function. I
don't think anyone can really complain about that. I remember the hassle
of corrupt files and incomplete downloads with only one source; never to
be seen again. And with the previous scaling issues, a file you were
looking or waiting to finish might be out there on the network. But the
connection between you and that exact file or search result just wasn't
gonna happen. DC++, Napster, and IRC all had those same or similar
problems. With the loss of all those problems, Gnutella also lost a
little bit of the magic; that I also found in those other aging/dead
networks. Anything that is left of that magic, is sure to fade out when
pc2pc connections just become too much of a security concern for the
average user to accept; let alone configure. The safety of a central
"Platform" is just too easy.

If you look at the current bad boys of decentralized networking, you get
even further from that kind of connection. More hashing, mathematical
encrypting, and distance between the users; for the sake of privacy,
security, and anonymity. They are called darknets because what happens
between those peer to peer connections is hidden. But more likely just
hidden from you and in the view of those with the huge amount of
resources to keep an eye on things in there. Most of those systems work
with out needing to configure your firewall. But on those same networks,
you operate inside them as if you aren't firewalled. That's something to
think about, when considering privacy, security, and anonymity.

I've totally hijacked this thread, for the sake of ranting. And I've
hijacked it from this post itself a couple of times. However, looking
around these day, I'm not too sure if anyone will mind.