> Which brings me back to my question: what is the supposed value of using p2p > (for anything other than the VoIP and relay service), and is it working? >
Joost for video relays. -salman > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:p2p-hackers- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alen Peacock >> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:56 PM >> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks >> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] what really happened to Skype? >> >> On 8/21/07, Alexander Pevzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> 2) The situation was fixed at the server side. Client upgrade was not >>> required >> >> This is a very interesting piece of information, and if true, points >> not to the fallibility of the decentralized portion of Skype, but once >> again to the fallibility of centralized Skype-controlled resources. >> >> I am very curious about how this fits in with the "p2p algorithm" >> problem that Skype is pointing at -- if no client upgrade was needed, >> and since supernodes are clients, this seems to once again indicate >> centralized bottleneck rosources. I suppose that "classical" p2p >> includes centralized resources (as in napster), and so code running on >> these centralized components could be considered part of the p2p >> algorithm... or is that too much of a stretch? >> >> Very informative post, Alexander -- thanks. >> >> Alen >> http://flud.org/ >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
