On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]> wrote: >> is that those facilitators are indeed interfacing >> with the bidirectional BT >> (as server [publishing, takedownable], >> and as client [downloading, a lesser action]) protocol. > > As client only, they behave as total free riders to be as discrete as > possible, they don't publish anything, don't say what they have (because
Ok. They will have issues with trackers that enforce ratio, but that is the design tradeoff to maintain the 'lesser action'. > That's the goal but starting a P2P without any content is a kind of > difficult, originally the bittorrent client was not an idea of us, that's > what people want, for streaming mainly. Or better... availability is no more than running a daemon homed to whatever the new network is, against the content already existing on users disks, by plugging the app in the middle into it... like BT/ftp/web. Users won't need to create their data from zero, worst case is a little adaptation. > they do this unconsciously so they should not be eligible to take down > facilitators are a small part of the project, their importance is more to > keep the content alive inside peersm since the browsers peers are ephemeral > (until maybe there are many many peers) Until then it seems, unlike tor relays which are 100% transit, they are storing content meant for the inside. If the content going into them from the outside is bad enough, that could get them looked at, and then shutdown, depending on how strong provisions regarding 'content stored unconsciously on behalf of users' is in their area. Probably a lesser risk. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
