[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 11 March 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

It is one thing to advocate for something legal, another to advocate for something illegal. Advocating something illegal is being an accessory to a crime, which in itself is a crime.

So advocating to free slaves in the pre civil ware US was a crime, never the less it was right.

Quote

Your cause is not help the unprivileged, your cause is to enable you to infringe copyrights without having to fear any consequences.

No, my cause it to enable others to infringe copyrights without having to fear any consequences.

As I stated already I don't fear any consequences.

Quote

Using the internet to do whatever you want is not a human right unlike the freedom of man.

I bag to differ.
Freedom of thought and speech is the most fundamental freedom of all, and I argue that using Internet is an extension of this.

Quote

Also, I do not fail to acknowledge that some laws are utter crap. I have said so in this discussions a number of times. Still, if I want to change the law just ignoring it is not enough. I have to go the democratic way or else there is no need for democracy and any state or rule of law.

But still you would just look like other humans are harmed in the name of the law even you think its utter crap.

So for you the rule of the law is more important that the wellbeing of you fellow human beings?

Quote

For all I care it is being an accessory to crimes, if defying the state equals overstepping the law in your mindset.

"Wo Unrecht zu Recht wird, wird Widerstand zur Pflicht"

Quote

The thing is that socially right and wrong is defined by your socialisation and peers. Your personal view might differ but who is wrong, the majority of the people or a single individual? Society penalizes those that stray from the normal path. Hence, if Hitler had won we would have been socialised to believe that the Jews are the root of evil and that people like your grand-parents were terrorists. From our perspective this is plain wrong but look at the children of modern day Nazis. They know little else but the shit they are thought by their parents and their parents peers. This is not about the state, this is about the society we live in. The state is merely an organization to support the integrity of society.

Well, but its kinda the poitn that we ware sizialised to belive many things, we neverthe less dont.
I would think my grand-parents were terrorists just as much as i think that copying is theft, meaning not at all.
And thats kindy my point you should always think for your self and not let the state or society do this for you.

Quote

And I do understand that right and wrong is not about legal or illegal. I have already expressed my dislike for several things. However, I also stated numerous times that I need to do the legal thing if I want to change things because if anybody does the illegal thing there is no need for a state. The lack of state is very undesirable if you like some structure in your life. Just look how badly switching governments and state organization effects Egypt.

Well, I don't advocate for a leack of state, where did you read this into my postings?

I advocate only for a proper balance between what the state can do and individuality.

this is on the line of not allowing the state to use violence against competently non violent people.

Quote

Well, you are using the sentence to tell me that I am being evil for following the rule of law. That I need to break the law in order to achieve something. That is wrong. If I were to try and change something the only legitimate way is the legal way because otherwise I am just as bad as those corrupting the law. Don't you even grasp such a basic thing?

No, I'm telling you that if the law requiters you to do an evil thing you are evil if you follow the law.
Isn't that simple?

Quote

I am being very reasonable. Ever heard of the term "manic depression?" Being indebted with banks, family and friends leaves you little opportunity to rebuild anything because to build you need money. Having lost anything can leave you lethargic and without any confidence to attempt anything new. There is a chance to regenerate but there is also a chance that the victim might just commit suicide or live a miserable lonely life until the end of his days. It is easy for us younger people to find something new but it gets ever harder to change and find a new job opportunity if you are older. I know second hand.

Irreversibility is not an argument in itself. Everything that can happen along the way needs to be taken into consideration.

And in your mind this justfyes to spy on every human on the internet?
how about on teh realworld, you can spread lies there just as good, shoulnt than all verbal conversations be recorded, inc ase some one spreads lies about some company?

Quote

However, there is financial loss and their is emotional loss. Losing the bakery your great-great-grand-father incorporated can not be recompensed. Just like the fragile memorabilia you were so afraid about when police searches your flat. This is actually one of the points where you contradict yourself. If it's about yourself you are very afraid indeed about any kind of damage, when it gets more general you don't care as long as it's not strictly physical against the human body.

Thats not correct, cause I'm not affraid about my memorabilia being broken by some thief.
I'm woried explicitly about damage caused by the state.
I would be equaliy woried if this guy would loose his bakerydoe to the state.

Quote

Just like shooting at someone might get him killed or leave him utterly unharmed, depending on your targeting skills. However, you take anything into account when you shoot and that in itself is a crime worth being persecuted. So is taking into account that harassing somebody might cause the other person harm.

Thats not a proepr analogy, as when you shoot it is only up tp you wather oyu hit or miss, the victim does not have an option.

If you tell somethign painfull its just as much up to you to chose the right wrong words as it is to the victim to being harmed by them.

Quote

Drug laws are made to protect people from making poor choices.

What gives the state the right tpo protect someone from himself, it is his live and his boddy and those his choice how and if hw wants to harm himself.

Quote

Making such laws is not harmful and enforcing them is not harmful either.

You you even know how much deaths the US war on drugs causes, and how muc suffering cound be avoinded if one could buy drugs like alkohol?

Quote

See above. Police damaging your invaluable memorabilia during a house search is unacceptable to you, ruining the company/ life of another person via the internet is. There is more but if you truly fail to recall what you said in this discussion I want to ask you why you even still participate.

Whats unacceptable to me is the state doing a clearly wrong thing and using all its force to finish his objective.

I don't care so much about ruining the company because you are allwoed to try to fight it, to defand your self.
If the police comes to search your house and possibly break soemthign, you are nto allwoed to defend yourself.
Thats what makes the difference.

Booth acts are evil, but the act that is legal is uncomprehensable more evi, as oyu are not alowed in any way to defend yourself.

Quote

Edit: Also thank you for totally ignoring the passage on verifying and falsifying a claim regarding dictatorships entirely in your last post. Again something you have no good answer to?

Well, whats there to say, with the right dictator you can have a better society as with a democracy, here you are competently right for once.
But you should ask yourself if you think it is wise to put the wellbeing of millions of humans into the hands of one person.

Also I guess I can assert quit right that the past showed us that no dictator leaved for ever and those sooner or later a one will get in power that will f*** up everything.

Those basing on our empirical experience we can assert that in the long run a dictatorship always results in a disaster.


David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 11 March 2012 - 01:02 PM

[fox88]

First of all, I should thank Stulle for giving expanded explanations to my posts. Unfortunately, it was still too complex for ungrown minds.

DavidXanatos, on 11 March 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Might you explaining to us how your answer is logical?
What has what you imply to by my motivation has to do with someone selling unlicensed copys?

Logical your are not.

Usually when someone asks questions, that person waits for answers, reads, understands and only then makes conclusions.
You asked and immediately presented the accusation of me being illogical.

David, can you kindly explain: why you need to behave like a moron?

[Sheznix]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I was only pointing out that the report you, Link, cited has to be read with some skepticism for some reasons. Apart from that I stay with what I said in another thread, if you have nothing to hide there is no reason for you to obfuscate your every step on the internet.

i completely disagrree. I don't have anything to hide, but eventually i will. as laws keep expanding more and more ways to prosecute a person becomes available especially with controversial "Privatising prison system" deal where the goverment has to meet the condition that prisons have to stay at 90% of their capicity lol
Those in power always look for ways to get even more power. They could technically privatise the air and charge for every galon of air you breath finding out who breaths without paying will be extremely difficult so laws that allow for better oversight will be passed eventually. the point is sooner or later everyone will have something to hide. Just because they make laws doesn't mean you can learn to stop breathing, the question is when will you stand up and resist within the boundries of being "fair" ofcourse

This post has been edited by Sheznix: 12 March 2012 - 02:05 PM

[fox88]

Sheznix, on 12 March 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

i completely disagrree.

You completely disagree with your own ideas, not with the quoted statement.

[Waseihou]

Hello, I'm interested in this idea as it seems good to me. I'm trying to figure out how to make it efficiently and maybe I will implement it or rather use existing solution and enhance it. If we want at least some plausible deniability, is it really that hard?

Just download some open source movie like Sintel, make it blocks S1..Sn, seed good RNG with data from S1 and make block R, then make some blocks Bi = Si xor Sj xor R, then Si = Bi xor Sj xor R and store this information into a table T, you do not have to store the Bi itself if you don't want, just the way to generate it. Every block Bi is provably representation of part of Sintel, because you can show an evidence by the record from T. So you can share them now legally. If someone uploads block Uj to your node, then store it as Bi = Uj xor R xor Sk, discard Uj and make another block Bi+1 = Bi xor Sj and into table store information that Sj = Bi+1 xor Bi, now also blocks Bi and Bi+1 are provably innocent, because you can show this record as an evidence. Make the table T public knowledge so that anyone can see that all blocks you are sharing are part of some representation of Sintel. It should not be hard to program an algorithm that will create an OFF URL to obtain Sintel from all your blocks so that they are all used. In fact you do not need to store some blocks, only those uploaded ones and a structure of hashes and how to get what from. Those blocks that were not used for long time can be discarded and only used blocks stored in cache. Store blocks in an encrypted file to make the scheme more secure.

Overhead - you have to download and store Sintel, that can be done with normal bittorrent legally. From now on for each uploaded block you only store it's xored variant and an equation how to create the second block. If someone wanted the second block, just generate it according to T if it is not cache. From outside world it is not clear if the data you are providing are stored in your computer or somehow generated. For mor security there is an encryption. Overhead is sizeof Sintel + sizeof stored data * function(sizeof table T) and it can be supposed that function (sizeof table T) might give value like 5% or so, because to store a tree-like structure with hashes cannot make much overhead.

This is just a draft and might be probably made better or it conaints errors.

For now just concentrate on how to make the concept better.

Basically - if you stored all your illegal data in an encrypted file/partition, shared legal open source vide like Sintel and some blocks generated on the fly by xoring Sintel blocks, some provably random blocks and blocks from illegal file with announcing only how to produce Sintel, then as long as they don't seize your computer and restore password for encrypted partition they can't convict you that easily.

1) You can prove that all shared blocks are part of some representation of Sintel, and making many representation of Sintel is your hobby or obsession. You have right to have a weird hobby.

2) All the blocks have properties of random noise.

3) They can't prove you are knowingly sharing the file.

4) The data are encrypted for case of seizure, while they can still get evidence that you shared blocks on net, they won't at least get evidence that you have them on your disk. That might deter them from search warrant, because it would be more difficult for them to convict you.

The file could be of course split among say 50 people, no more. I thing that in this way we could increase anonymity without much sacrifice. Better something than nothing. For starter just keep it simple, stupid.

The above schema could be changed into OFF system without changing network part, so transition in future would be possible.

Problem is for uploaders to distribute OFF URL, but it's another part of story which will need darknet. We can use I2P.

Waseihou

[fox88]

Waseihou, on 13 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Problem is for uploaders to distribute OFF URL, but it's another part of story which will need darknet. We can use I2P.

"We' - what does that mean?
A small closed group of nerds? Then say bye to huge selection of shared files.
Everyone? Then you can be wiretapped and traced as a source of illegal contents.

PS. I noticed you use legal and illegal rather indiscriminately.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 14 March 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

"We' - what does that mean?

I guess we means those who implement it neards indeed.
But the entire file sharing population will use it therefor there will be plenty of files, and darknet means tt will be sufficiently encrypted and anonymized that it wont be tracable, those legal ilelgal will be irrelevant.
Its easy to make something untraceable as long as you don't have TB's of data to shuffle around.

So an approach with a brightnet (OFF) for file payload and a darknet for keyword searches and URL retrieval is the best way to go.

David X.

[Waseihou]

I believe that such a thing should for starter serve more as a cache for BitTorrent and other filesharing applications including emule, so there should be shared service which several p2p will use. That will probably need it's own DHT. Create service that runs in background and client applications connect to it and use it. The idea of blocks opens an opportunity to create shared resource for many p2p applications, that's what I like about it.

I like the idea of Owner Free Filesystem, but it has to be simplified, I have started experimenting with an idea of a new protocol (just a draft on paper).

The idea goes like this:

In torrent there are files, and each file has blocks of some size, say 128KB each block like in OFF system. It would be nice to have a "cache" for those blocks spread over internet, but we can't allow it to have it so much overhead. How to do it?

Encoding:

Let's look howto process one file: file consists of blocks S0, S1, ..., Sn

Take first block S0 of the file and use some of it's data to seed a good random number generator and use it to create a random block R of the same size as S0. So anyone having first block of the file can create R, because the algorithm will be public knowledge. Then make a xor operation over all blocks of the file and create a new set of blocks B0, B1, ..., Bn so that Bi = Si xor R. Then compute md5 hashes for each of blocks and make an ordered set HS of them, so that HS = (md5( R),md5(B0), md5(B1), ..., md5(Bn)).

edit: THERE IS UNRESOLVED PROBLEM WITH UPLOAD THAT USER CAN BE FAKED TO SHARE ANY BLOCK OF DATA EVEN UNENCRYPTED WHEN XORING IS NOT DONE ON HIS SIDE, so for any block being uploaded it would be better to rather send a hash(B0) and he will have to obtain B0, generate R, discard B0.

Now HS could be stored into distributed hash table (DHT) like Kademlia network by concatenating string values of md5 hashes into "value" and usign md5 of the first block as "key": md5(B0) -> md5( R),md5(B1),...,md5(Bn)

But the list of md5 hashes is probably still too big for storage in this network, so concatenate the list into another blocks H0, H1, ..., Hm and use exactly same procedure.

Then into DHT store md5(B0) -> md5(HR), md5(BH0), md5(BH1), ... md5(BHm)

The number of hashes m will be much lower than n.

Into the distributed filesystem (=between sharing nodes of the network) will be stored (R, B0, B1, ..., Bn, BH0, BH1, ..., BHm) = (U1, ..., Un) = U = upload set

If the torrent has a magnet, then into DHT will be also stored pair magnet->md5(File1.B0), md5(File2.B0), ..., md5(FileN.B0). So with magnet we find hashes of first blocks of each file in the torrent.

Nodes and uploading:

Each node will generate it's own RSA certificate and make a md5 hash of it's public key, this will become the user's ID.

Each node's IP is publicly known or can be obtained by some means similar to PEX which could be probably modified for this purpose.

When someone will be uploading all the blocks in U, then he will compute distance (for example hamming distance, or use xor as metrics, that is something I have to thing about later...) between md5(Ui) and some user's ID. For now use hamming distance like OFF system is using. He has list of users, of course.

Distance = f(ID,md5(Ui)) = hamming_distance(ID,md5(Ui))

If the distance is small enough then it means that Ui will be upload to the cache of the user with that ID. So it means that the Ui will be replicated to cache of more than one user. Each user will announce not only their ID, but also maximal hamming distance they support.

Retrieval:

Nodes identifies to each other by their ID's.

To retrieve a block, client application will ask all nodes he knows which can have that block. Those are nodes which have low enough distance between md5's - less or equal than announced one.

If some node asks for hash which have higher hamming distance than that of the node being asked, then after several such attempts from the asking node the asking node will be added to a blacklist of asked node. There is one exception to the rule: asked node can ask for block with md5 which it was asked for if it does not have it because it can suppose that asking node sooner or later retrieved it somehow. There should be a time limit for how long after being asked it can ask back. In this way the content is over time located to the nodes where it is expected to be found.

Retrieving:

User will get by magnet link md5(B0) of stored file, then it will retrieve md5(HR), md5(BH0), md5(BH1), ... md5(BHm) from DHT and downloads those blocks from other peers. Then Hi = HR xor BHi and this is is used to get HS = (md5( R),md5(B0), md5(B1), ..., md5(Bn)). Then he downloads blocks R, B0, B1, ..., Bn. To obtain original blocks Si, he uses formula Si = R xor Bi. In this way any block can be retrieved from network.

Anonymity:

The users cannot know what data he is hosting in his cache, because they are naively encrypted with One Time Pad, and if the number of users is large then it can be supposed that the blocks of every file will be evenly distributed among all users of the network. While it is provable that someone was hosting a block of some copyrighted file, he can still defend himself that he did not know what the content was and that he only hosted a few blocks so the "measure of his guilt" is low. This system is based on the spreading the guilt among so many users that no one could be made preferable target for law enforcenment or mafiaa. It depends on country and it's laws, but with this it would be much harderer to say: "Look, he knowingly hosted a file which breach my copyright".

Anonymity is lower than in OFF system or darknet, but there is not probably much less overhead, not sure. The trick is that each block of file is xored only with R which can be computed from the first block of file, so only few more blocks have to be downloaded: R and those blocks used for storing md5s of others blocks. Disk space is somewhat wasted as some blocks are duplicated among users while they are not useful for them, this is still a catch.

Anyway, this system which I described in this draft is meant as a CACHE for existing bittorrent users, so people will be downloading normal torrent and this cache will be used to obtain more data faster. It is meant to help to speed up torrents with low number of seeds or it could even be possible to resurrect dead torrent if the network was large enough.

The drawback is that the anonymity is not as perfect and the user will have waste part of their disc capacity to help the community.

I hope I have described it correctly, please look for logical mistakes in my description, I'm sure it is not complete.

edit: instead of md5 use better hash function: probably one of these sha-1,sha-256,tiger

Waseihou
the Czech Pirate Party registered supporter

This post has been edited by Waseihou: 14 March 2012 - 09:13 AM

[DavidXanatos]

The doctrine for authorities collecting sensitive, private data on citizens right now appears to be "your private data may be useful to us, and therefore, we shall take it by force". From general wiretapping to data retention to face recognition to mass tracking of individuals, the same pattern is evident: people demanding their right to privacy are treated as criminals who are obstructing justice just for the sake of it.

From experience, we know that all data leaks. Seriously, if the United States of America can't protect its most dirty laundry from leaking through Wikileaks, you can bet that no governmental authority in the world will be able to – or care to – protect the data they are collecting about you this very minute.

Whom you talk to, and how often. How you move around the city. Where you rest, where you work, where you sleep. Your dating preferences and habits. Political opinions. What newspapers you read. What articles in those newspapers, in what order, and for how long.

Never in history have authorities been so carelessly curious about the people they are supposed to work for, and taken so much information from them by force. The doctrine is evident: "Your private may be useful to us, therefore, we shall take it by force; who cares if you are inconvenienced by us digging through about your habits in depth".

Let me illustrate the level of "inconvenienced" that history teaches us is the sharp end-of-the-day reality:

The Netherlands used to keep track of people's religion as part of the public records. The intent was noble as always: by keeping track of how many Jews, Catholics, and Protestants there were in a city and its different parts, you would be able to plan for an appropriate amount of synagogues, Protestant churches, and Catholic churches, their proportion to one another, and so on.

Then, World War II came around.

There were almost no Jews at all in the Netherlands after World War II. According to Wikipedia, less than 10% survived (14,346, compared to an earlier population of 154,887). As it turns out, it was very convenient for the… new administration… to have access to the collected data, and it was indeed used against the citizens, as it always is in the end.

I heard a new term in my political discussions this week: genocide-resistant identity card. It was in my discussions with @leashless about defense policies, and how the worst genocides are always based off of public records. The genocide in Rwanda is another example of this. If people can do this just from details about your identity, how precisely can you be targeted in the future?

Imagine that the authorities have access to your daily movements, everything you've said and everybody you've talked to for the past couple of years. (They do, or are seeking to have that access.) How would a hypothetical future… administration… be able to use this against you? Could they conceivably see any patterns?

You know, it doesn't matter if you haven't broken a single law. What matters is how your data is interpreted.

Perhaps you've managed to keep that lover or mistress a secret from everybody. Well, everybody except the authorities who know, of course. What happens next?

Perhaps you've discovered the world's most delicious reindeer meatballs in a small pub on your way home from work. What happens when the Department of Transportation discovers that you frequently stop by a pub on your way home from work, then drive the rest of the way home?

Perhaps you're helping your grandmother with her weekly groceries every Friday evening. What happens when the social authorities see you stopping for hours on the main prostitution street every Friday night – and they don't know (or care) that your grandmother lives there?

Mathematically, we make the following observation: No citizen data is thrown away, nor is there ever less data collected, and there is a nonzero chance that it is horribly abused against the citizens by authorities who are supposed to work for them. Since there is a nonzero and non-decreasing chance, it will eventually happen, with mathematical certainty.

This data collection doctrine focused on usefulness has to change, of course. Urgently so. It needs to change to something like this:

"Any data collected must be assumed to leak and be used against the citizen in the worst conceivable way. If this worst conceivable way is not acceptable in a democratic society, then the data may not be collected in the first place."

After all, it is only prudent that we demand our seven privacies: those of body, correspondence, data, economy, identity, location, and territory.

The next week, the Swedish parliament votes whether to introduce the violatory Data Retention Directive in Sweden. Today, there were rallies all over Sweden demanding our right to privacy. It is a more than reasonable demand.



http://falkvinge.net...t-the-citizens/

[fox88]

David, I believe you should remove the latest post of yours.
And probably edit out all the links to your favourite site you used too many times in previous posts.
It was more or less tolerable to discuss the direction of eMule's development and the reasons behind it, even though the reasons partly were beyond strictly technical.
But now you gave an example what happens when someone gets too much freedom. You just do not see where to stop.
This is not a place to promote your political ideas.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88
You deny the implementation of anonymity and deniability features into emule on political grounds there for it is needed to advocate for those features on political grounds as well.

Since you seam to have a problem with my sloppy formulations you might want to take a look on some well formulated text written by someone who is good with the English speech.

You may also take a look on http://falkvinge.net...ciples/privacy/


Last but not least you are not the moderation and those it is not up to you in any way to decide what is tolerable and what is not.

The quoted text as well as any other content on ricks page is explicitly CC0 (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) those it is legal to be copied and spread in full text every ware.


EDIT:
Talking about scenarios that according to stule will never happpen, one is just happening in New York:
http://www.nyclu.org...s-short-justice

Quote

The leadership of the New York Civil Liberties Union today denounced the State Legislature’s passage of legislation allowing police to collect a genetic sample of every person convicted of any crime in New York State, saying the measure will do little to enhance public safety while increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions and flawed prosecutions.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 19 March 2012 - 06:52 AM

[fox88]

DavidXanatos, on 18 March 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

You deny the implementation of anonymity and deniability features into emule on political grounds there for it is needed to advocate for those features on political grounds as well.

You got it wrong, and the situation is almost the opposite. That was you who started using political arguments for the implementation, while the technical details are nearly forgotten.
Bad idea for a technical forum - see the Forum Rules.

DavidXanatos, on 18 March 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Since you seam to have a problem with my sloppy formulations you might want to take a look on some well formulated text written by someone who is good with the English speech.

Thanks a lot, I've got enough of naive liberal thinking already. I might be interested to read something more serious than revelation of the "generation of Dungeons and Dragons", but that is still a huge offtopic in FR forum.
I would not be surprised if all this offtopic discussion would be deleted completely shouild you insist on promoting your party here.

[DavidXanatos]

fox88, on 20 March 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 18 March 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

You deny the implementation of anonymity and deniability features into emule on political grounds there for it is needed to advocate for those features on political grounds as well.

You got it wrong, and the situation is almost the opposite. That was you who started using political arguments for the implementation, while the technical details are nearly forgotten.

Well to be exactly precise the off topic started with a political statement form stule:

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I was only pointing out that the report you, Link, cited has to be read with some skepticism for some reasons. Apart from that I stay with what I said in another thread, if you have nothing to hide there is no reason for you to obfuscate your every step on the internet.

To bring int back into memory the mentioned report is not political but only on the legality of off within the currently in place legal framework.

Politics however are not about acting within a legal framework, its about changing it or justifying not changing it.

Quote

I would not be surprised if all this offtopic discussion would be deleted completely shouild you insist on promoting your party here.

And that would be wrong why exactly?
As you see I haven't started the off-topic so I don't really care water it will be deleted or not.

David X.

[Stulle]

Just the small reminder that I was always promoting the idea that eMule and its developers should not concern themselves with legal aspects of the programs usage. Please see the quote you used in just that context. If you don't download anything illegally you may just as well not hide your frightful bum.

I am not good in recalling the details and my headache urges me not to dig into it any deeper but I believe you, David, started an argument to show me how badly we need full anonymity in all aspects of our lives which I still believe to be utter nonsense. Anyway, since I got involved I am just as much to blame for all this OT as are you. Still, it would be a lot nicer if you could actually think for yourself in such a discussion and not just reiterate ideas someone told you about to fit your personal desires into the system we live in (i.e. get some perspective).

This post has been edited by Stulle: 20 March 2012 - 04:24 PM

[hooligan3000]

irgendwie hab ich den faden verloren
ihr sprecht immer noch über die totale überwachung?
oder übers copy right?

[DavidXanatos]

Quote

If you don't download anything illegally you may just as well not hide your frightful bum.

Thats plain wrong.

Stulle, on 20 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Still, it would be a lot nicer if you could actually think for yourself in such a discussion and not just reiterate ideas someone told you about to fit your personal desires into the system we live in (i.e. get some perspective).

These are my ideas and the articles of rick are just confirming them, not the other way around.

[Waseihou]

Guys, you should not argue there. The article from Falkvinge is good and I'm translating it right now so that people in the Czech Republic can read it, thanks, BUT we should really focus on to why implement this idea or why not. I really like about that the fact that it could interoperate accross various network. Imagine DC++ client with segmented downloading searching for a block and being able to use sources from emule network, they would not even need to be connected to a hub. Basically any cache where blocks ditribution takes place would be useful. The biggest problem with all those clients and their networks is that there are too many of them, therefore we need to create a CONNECTOR for them, something from what will benefit every network.

[DavidXanatos]

@Waseihou
What you describe seams to me like using freenet as a block cache for P2P, as the files while being encrypted are still technically a copyright violation, so at least in countries like Germany this will fail the legal aspect.

The main important feature of OFF is that no only you can say that you don't know what was in your cache, but that the adversary can not prove that what you have in your cache actually is his copyrighted and encrypted file and not just some purly random block of data or an encrypted block of some public domain (CC0) content.

This is a major qualitative difference.


As about putting Filesharing networks together, I'm also a big proponent of such a step and am currently working on a Filesharing client that would bring together ED2K, BT and One Click Hoster Downloads.
It is planed to be released in Mai and is called NeoLoader (http://board.neoloader.com/offtopic/2085-neoloader-erste-screenshots.html)
It will also feature an own Next generation Kademlia network, though not in the first release.

You mentioned DC++ do you really think this technology is still mainstream enough to deserve support in a next generation Filesharing client?

The main issue with DC++ is that it by design does not scale well so it cant be used globally.

Also calculating of the tiger hash Merkle trees with a 1kb block resolution has a terribly high CPU usage.
Calculating a SHA2 hash tree with a 256KB block size runs on my system well past 100 mb/s while the the tiger tree hash tops at 20-30 mb/s max.


Are there any other filesharing networks you would argue deserve support in a next generation Filesharing client?



David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 23 March 2012 - 08:11 AM

[Some Support]

I don't really want to participate discussing OFF (it won't get into eMule and imho has no advantages which justify 100% overhead), but I'm a bit curious:

Quote

As about putting Filesharing networks together, I'm also a big proponent of such a step and am currently working on a Filesharing client that would bring together ED2K, BT and One Click Hoster Downloads.

What is the advantage over other multi-network clients like shareaza? Also which license are you going to use?

[DavidXanatos]

Some Support, on 24 March 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Quote

As about putting Filesharing networks together, I'm also a big proponent of such a step and am currently working on a Filesharing client that would bring together ED2K, BT and One Click Hoster Downloads.

What is the advantage over other multi-network clients like shareaza? Also which license are you going to use?

The main advantage over shareaza will be that it will be able to identify files across different networks so that for example you can download one and the same file simultaneously from bittorent and ed2k, it is designed so that it will even work with multi file torrents (actually you could download even one file through > 2 different torrents, something no torrent client can at the moment).
This will be done with an own Kademlia network, where multiple hashes and associations will be published, so that if you have a hash of a file you can find the corresponding ed2k hashes or torrent info hashes, or vice versa, having a torrent info hash you will be able to find ed2k or Neo Hash (sha2 hash tree with 256kb block size) for all files in the torrent and subsequently find other torrents for the same files. I anticipate it will be a bit work to get the corruption handling working properly and detect as soon as possible bogus associations.

Also it is written in QT so it will be platform independent.


As about the license this is not determined yet.
The client is purly self writen code using only BSD/MIT/LGPL licensed binary 3rd party library (ben code parser, json parser, qr-code librarys, z7 library, crypto++ library etc...) so we have a free choice.

The client is made modular using a text based (bencode/jsonn/xml) interface using pipes and/or (encrypted) sockets, so that the core and GUI can run in separated processes (though they are booth in the same exe) also as service/daemon.
The NeoKAD, TorrentDHT (MIT) and MuleKAD (GPL) modules will reside in separated processes and exe files.

David X.