> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Serguei Osokine
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks
> Subject: RE: [p2p-hackers] HTTP design flawed due to lack of
> understandingofTCP
>
> On Friday, January 05, 2007 Adam Fisk wrote:
> > Tit-for-tat is basically providing incentive to keep your client
> > running.
>
> I would argue that it is actually a way to loosely group the
> similar-bandwidth hosts together in the cloud. Not entirely sure why
> - maybe this simplifies the selection of peers, allowing you to use
> what amounts to a constant constant number of them instead of having
> to grab more and more when their cumulative uplink bandwidth happens
> to be inadequate.
>
> In any case, if you are downloading, your client is already
> running, isn't it? Unless you're talking about "keep the honest
> client running", as opposed to the hypothetical cheating leecher
> client, which is really made pretty impractical by tit-for-tat.
> (Not sure how serious this problem was to beging with, but that
> is a long discussion.)
It appears to be a good time to mention BitThief, which allegedly
defeats BT's tit-for-tat mechanism.
http://dcg.ethz.ch/projects/bitthief
It made news a couple of days ago when another "BT-optimizer" was
released - BitTyrant -
http://bittyrant.cs.washington.edu/
Alex
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
