New Network with DEcentral PROXIES for Anonymity

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4567

New Protocol - PROXY-NETWORK
Hi,

If you want to use a proxy, then you have this structure:
client - Proxy-Server - Website-Server

You use a proxy, which is a centralized server to anonymize your ip adress.

Now what about creating a decentral-proxy network?

On my personal computer is a SERVENT (client and server) for a proxy-server created:
this means, I am a proxy for others from the proxynetwork to download through my proxy.

This Proxy network is like a gnutella-structure, there are PN-(Proxynet)-web-caches to connect an bootstrap to other proxyservents to download through these Proxy-Servents.

The network has no queries to root, but only to hold contact to other proxies and get their connections to know, so after a while the connection is hold, but not used for the proxy-way, e.g..

So you can use after a short period of time a new neighbour for proxying. Each 10 minutes e.g. you can choose one new proxy-peer or neighbour´s Ip adress to contact the world though him as a proxy.

Broadcasting IP adresses within the proxynetwork helps to get new and fresh neighbours every time.

Once connected to this proxynetwork, you are behind a proxy and you have each 10 minutes a new proxy IP, your Proxy-peers are broadcasting their Peer-IP-adresses on this network so you have always fresh meat for new proxying.


Now on this Prox-network, you habe the possibility to start a new network like Gnutella.

Instead of your ISP, the Proxynetwork is used. Gnutelle never connects to you ISP, Gnurtella connects always Internal to your proxy-Servent on your Harddisk.

So the Proxyservent is the new ISP and offers through the Proxynetwork all few minutes a new neigbour for Proxying.

It is like Altnet and Fasttrack or like Waste and Gnutella.

Gnutella does not connect to a central Proxy-server, but Gnutella is connectiong to a Proxy-Network, which is serving like a proxy and has every 20 minute a new IP adress for proxying.


So lets say, the Proxy-network has one PORT, then Gnutella omnly need to connect not to the ISP or the CENRALIZED Proxy server, Gnutella only needs to connect to the Proxy-Network of the Client wich is installed on MY Harddisk.

This Proxy-network then is Rotating the proxy-nodes within the proxynetwork, WHILE my client on MY harddisk is as well a servent and working for others as a Proxy.

So the structure looks like this

Gnutella on my Harddisk ->
is connecting to a second client on my harddisk Through a certain port of this PROXY-Client.
->
My Proxy-client is connection to other Proxy-clients like described. They work as proxies for each other an a rotating way on a network-connection, which guarantees via IP-Broadcasting to get every period of time a new Proxy-Servent.

Then I can download a file though a proxy, wich is not a Centralized server, but one De-centralized proxy-SERVENT on a Proxy-Network.

So the structure looks like:

Gnutella -> Proxy-SERVENT on my harddisk -> ISP (IP-A) -> Proxy-Servent (IP-B) -> Gnutella

This model allows me to download from other gnutella-peers not using my IPADRESS (IP-A) but the IP adrss of the Proxynode, i am connected with though the decentralized Proxynetwork.

If a IP-ROTATION is done, the Proxyservent on my harddisk is managing this.

So this decentral-proxy-network allows you to surf not over the ISP-IP adress, but to load everything though a decentralized Proxy-network.

We only need a Http-Server wich can work as a proxy for some peers, and then 25-5o people can download though my IP adress everything they want without showing their IP adress.

INSTEAD my Ip adress is shown.

Because the IP adress is rotating every 10 minutes and there are a LOT of Proxy-Servents on the net, the traffic is low and anonymity is guaranteed-

Is this technically possible?

What is described by now, is though a one way ticket. You need One Gnutellaclient, which is not connecting to a proxy-network.


If both gnutella-clients are on the proxynetwork it looks like this:


GnutellaClient X -> ProxynetworkSERVENT A - Proxyservent B -> <- Proxyservent D - Proxyservent E <- GneuellaClient y

If you have this structure, then gnutella or the proxyservent has to decide automatically to root the gnutella traffic "unsecure" without the Proxynetwork.


This does not help anonymit for searches, only for downloading and uploading.

To give anonymity to searches in the Search result tab, there should always not be displayed the IP Adress of the Gnutellaclient, but the IP-Adress of the HUB.


So jut let´s decentralizes the Proxy-servers and bring them on a network, then we have a dynamic proxying process.

Thanks

[PuNiShErKiLl666]

Huh??
what the hell is this? can you hook a program to it or something?

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

The systems works like this:

The Client, lets call it Shareaza, is connecting to the network the normal way.

Then Raza clients are identified as NORMAL-Clients and then there are PROXY-Clients, the user can make a normal client to a proxy-client. It is his choice.


If I choose to stay in normal-unsafe mode to the network, then RAZA does not ask a peer, if it is a PROXY-Client.

If the user chooses the Option to be itself as well a proxy-client, to built up a decentral-proxy-network underlying, then my raza-client is asking every peer, if he is a PROXY-Client too.


If he has found ANY Proxy-Client, this IP adress is used for BOOTSTRAPPING.

With this IP adress a Decentral-Proxy-Client-Network is built up.

User "A" is connecting to several proxy hubs and then IP adresses of other Proxy-clients are broadcasted. So that User "A" is getting each Minute a new bunch of IP adresses, which he can use for Proxying.

The proxying is modulating each 10 minutes and a new proxy is used.

Others use my client as well for proxying.

So this underlaying new network of proxy-Ip-adresses is another Cache ("Proxy-IP-clients-Cache") which is connecting to 3 proxy-peers (hubs which built up the broadcasting network).

So if a user has choosen this mode, he is NOT connecting anymore to a ISP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
he is then connecting to the DECENTRAL-PROXY-NETWORK on his own COMPUTER.
So Shareaza is not connecting to the ISP anymore, this is only done by the DE-proxy network on a certain port on my pc system.

The Network is not rooting any query for media, it is only rooting the IP adresses to get fresh new MIXTURES of IP Adresses.

The proxy network is like WASTE broadcasting new Ip adresses, which my client is Caching.
This cache is as well usable for Bootstrapping to this decentral-network.

So even the FIRST Bootsttrapping contact has not to be made in normal mode. But If I do have nothing in my DE-PROXY-IP-Cache for bootstrapping to the de-proxy network, then I can search for a RAZA-client, which advertises as well as a Proxy-Client.

So we have a Stealth mode. We need no g-webcaches for this decentral proxy network.

Besides this invention we can implement in the NORMAL shareaza client CACHING, so e.g. the last 10 downloaded files, or the popular cache, which means a user can foward some partials to other clients, which then HAVE to store these.

This can all be done, but the IP adresses are Faked or proxied or Mixtured by the DE-PROXY-NETWORK.

The users decide to connect to their ISP or to choose the stealth mode, which offers an IP "Mixture" (see JAP on anoninfo.tu-dresden or so) messup and of course then the option, that others do some interaction (p2p of course) through my proxy.

The users decide, if the Proxy is saving some data, or if the Proxy is only used to forward the Packets with the outbound displaying of MY ip adress.

SOCIALL I think this system should work, because it is "tit for tat". I give You my Ip adress und you give me Your Ip adress, because we change the IP adresss each 10 Minutes, there is no danger.

Users can decide how often an IP adress in the de-proxy network should change and if the proxy as well contains a cache for media, how big it is.

So If the IP-Proxy is changing automatically in 10 Minutes, the transactions, which have begon, can complete, but new questions are routed to the other new proxy.

So we need only some Hubs or Proxy-ulta-peers, which I can connect to, and which broadcast me some new IP adresses every minute and so I can fill my Ip-Cache with ip adresses of proxy-clients.

the Proxy-ultra-peers (maybe I am connected to 3 of them), is sending/broadcasting each minute lets say 10 new IP adresses for other Proxy Clients. These IP adresses are stored in MY clients cache,

MY CLient is changing each 10 Minutes the Proxy and then choosing BY RANDOM one out of my proxy-Ip-cache. This is Mixture enough, because then my client is not using the IP adress, which was sent from a Proxyultrapeer (PUP), because I have 3 of them and each "PUP" is sending 10 IP adresses each minute, I have after 10 minutes 300 IP adresse in my cache, which I can choose ONE per one interaction/download to use it as a new Proxy.

this is amlost an OFFER to the users. to MIXTURE the Ip adresses, with which they connect to the network.

if THEN a Buddylist offers a BUDDYLANE, which is encrypted (like in waste), the ISP cannot watch the packets, nor a downloader can identify the IP of the Sender of the packets.

Only the Search reults offer the IP adress, but if Shareaza - in the normal client - has more Caching (of popular media, of forced partials and of last downloaded media - all as partials) then we get search results from IP adresses, which DE FACTO do not have the media.

Maybe as well tHE HUB ip could be shown in the search results instead of the leaves IP. If the file is then downloaded, then we have the steath mode on and nowone coud get the ip adress.

XS-Sources as well would be then be "proxied Ip adresses". Which means that normal gnutella 1 clients could not use them, because they do not use the underlaying DE-proxy-Network.

Though it would be wishful, to have a system, which is a plugin, which could be used as well for emule and other P2p-systems as an open standard.

Thanks

[NightZombie]

Crazy!

[TheIceMan]

Whatever you are smoking I WANT SOME !

[johnsmatrix]

Could someone condense this down to a paragraph or so.. My eyes are on the table and I don't want to go get them..thx

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by johnsmatrix
Could someone condense this down to a paragraph or so.. My eyes are on the table and I don't want to go get them..thx

Take the network, jumble it around, and make everyone a proxy for someone else.

[Krell]

This is one of the most concise and understandable proposals I have seen in the arena. The mechanics are do-able, and it makes sense on several levels.

Ponder this, Person B works for the RIAA. The connect to the proxy, and thus become a proxy too. Every 10 minutes, new IP addresses are passes around, and a lot of broadcasting done.

Great. Now person B goes to cmd prompt, and types "netstat -o"

This will show them all the connections they have and who they are connected to, the longer it runs, the more IP addresses they have. While this doesnt show WHAT each user is sharing, will it not show who is on the proxy? (next best thing to being there)

Also, are you suggesting that the use of a simple sniffing tool, will not be able to tie the IIP addreses to the file names and header info on said system? ( the same thing as being there)

I challenge you to try this, as there is no point using a proxy network where the information can still be sniffed on any local level. Perhaps its understood that the data will be encrypted, or all VPN \ CHAPS2, but I did not see that in your post. If this information IS obtainable to an end user, then this setup could potentially be WORSE for security than a non proxied decentralzed network. (talk about fishing in a barrel!)

Granted, I do not use a proxy for P2P, but I certainly CAN see in detail whats going in and out of my PC and to whom\where.


Another thing that concerns me, is , that after the proxy network grows in size, and people are connected to more PCs as they download more individual files, that the amount of broadcast response traffic by the proxy requests will impair performance. I forsee a person canecelling all their downloads, but still seeing a voracious amount of traffic just in answering the requests.


This is off the top of my head, so please bounce back your opinions on this.

cheers

[Psilaxs]

Also, if people are acting as proxies for one another, that means my download speed will be MAX what their upload is (most likely never above 256 killobits) and at worse, what their upload is divided by number of people they are acting as a proxy for.

[vudoo]

What needs to happen is having a version of the client for countries that have NO copyright law like in Palastine. The US clients would only USE the Palistinian clients as proxies. Then you could use Shareza all you want and the RIAA could not get any info. The client would check to make sure that the proxy is indeed outside of US soil. If not it won't use it. A person would have to research and make sure that the countries listed are not under any kind of copyright juristiction. This way we are all safe. The app should be easy as run the app and Shareza comes and connects through the client or make the client as a plug in for Shareza.

BTW isn't Shreza also capible of connecting to Fast Track? Or what about a client that could use Fast Track or K-Lite and use proxies. Now that would ROCK since you can disable the search for files from same user. If we get more countries involved that don't have a copyright law then we stand a better chance at defeating the RIAA and going about our business as usual. This is the best deal I've heard so far. We may not be stuck with ES5 for ever thank God.

Voodoohippie
(Defender of FREE cyberspace)

[Krell]

Why should we all hop to Palestine when there would be a bajillion proxies on the way there?

Whe whole idea is masquerading and sheer numbers.

[Sephiroth]

Its hybridcilent one of their numbers names spamming their horrible ideas which dont work..

Keep it up and you can add this forum to the numerous ones youve been banned for spamming this crap constantly under different names too.

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

i think this ideas has been realized here

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/08102003a.php

[Krell]

Well it was nice knowing you, it was almost a good idea.

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

>Well it was nice knowing you, it was almost a good idea.

hä ? what do you think now, is there something good for you in this idea ? Of course becaseu of "B" risk an encryption is needed (Waste key-pair)

> talk about fishing in a barrel!

;-.) good to know you as well...

[skoubidou]

so if i understand you correctly, the system you are proposing functions in a similar way as freebird by photono-software (http://www.photono-software.de/FreeBird) or JAP (http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but simply said:

a user runs their gnutella client and this proposed proxy software simultaneously. The proxy software manages a decentralized network of computers that are prepared to handle your traffic. Gnutella tunnels thru this proxy software on a local port and onto the network.

Did I understand you correctly?

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

yes. each gnutella servent is a proxy.
users can choose old way, or to use the proxy.
then the servernt is looking only for proxy-clients.
through these the client is connecting as well to all clients.
The decentral proxy-network gets every 10 minutes a new decentral proxy.

so the change is one NOT to use a CENTRAL proxy. each client could be one. Then you have a totally mixture of ip-adresses and then the riaa cannot find out.

Of course it is more secure if there is a encryption from "a" to "b", so a secure buddylane like waste.

[jonnymnemonic]

FreeNet has the right idea for its future underlying network code. The entire network will proxy itself (which is actually what it does now), and no one will know what they have stored on their hard drive or what they are proxying. The difference is that they are making the network able to allocate resources (bandwidth) intelligently, such that a 28.8k modem node does not handle anything close to the level of proxying (if any at all) as the local rich guy and his OC3.

There are really only two things wrong with FreeNet as it stands today: 1) it is slow as hell because all nodes are treated as equals so far as proxying is concerned (so you're as apt to get a 28.8k node feeding you your request as a faster node); 2) the interface. They're actively working to address the speed issue (which is, by far, the bigger problem). After that I would assume they'll work on sprucing up the interface so your average noob can comprehend it.

All self-proxying networks will, almost by definition, use at least roughly double the bandwidth of a normal unproxied network. That's not a big deal though if the bandwidth is allocated intelligently, and I'm sure few would mind cutting their speed in half to assure an anonymous experience. Wasted bandwidth from cancelled requests is really a trivial problem compared to the problem of all nodes being treated as equally capable for proxying the data.

I do not think the FreeNet folks are in any way concerned with letting other networks layer themselves on top of FreeNet. If other people wanna figure out a way to do that, I'm sure the FreeNet folks would not mind, but that's not their goal, and they're not going to devote manpower to that themselves.

BTW, If you've got five or ten bucks to spare for the cause, I'm sure the FreeNet folks would make excellent use of it. ;)

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

http://www.photono-software.de/Stealther/img/howstealtherworks-website.gif

see here as well

http://www.stealther.com/?reseller=

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

mh .. freenet underlaying,
this is the same as adding a new network underlaying in shareaza with decentral proxy connections like it is described in steather.com.

The media-cache, to send media actively into peers cache, could be developed hand in hand with the p2p-app. because THIS is responsible for the media transport.

The underlaying de-proxy-netwiork we only need for spooved or mixed up ip-adresses. Ok then an encrypted line...

I dunno, some sam freenet, some say no and think a new network is quick developed and underlayed hand in hand better with the p2p app.


TOWARDS FREENET:
- The devels are not interested in makeing freenet tomething liek gntuella, the distriibute besites and infomartion, no movies and no music.

- The interface is really ugly, but I would use it as a DEAMON, even if the bandwidth is low and the transfer need time,

IF ONLY the freenet app could handle MAGNET URI LINKS and it woudl have a search engine,


So you can search jigle for ed2k and bitzi or the boards: ONCE gotten the hash, freenet could load it, does not matter in which time,


Money would be no problem. Of course I would donate 50.100 dollars, if they would add a SEARCHFUNCTION BY KEYWORD or at least a MAGNET URI HANDLING towards Freenet.

But they dont. so I recommend to develop a new simple decentral proxy network within gnutella and within each client a proxy, peers are proxying each other - as ONE Possible Mode to operate and connect.

thanks.

[zebi]

Originally posted by vudoo
What needs to happen is having a version of the client for countries that have NO copyright law like in Palastine. The US clients would only USE the Palistinian clients as proxies. Then you could use Shareza all you want and the RIAA could not get any info. The client would check to make sure that the proxy is indeed outside of US soil. If not it won't use it. A person would have to research and make sure that the countries listed are not under any kind of copyright juristiction. This way we are all safe. The app should be easy as run the app and Shareza comes and connects through the client or make the client as a plug in for Shareza.

BTW isn't Shreza also capible of connecting to Fast Track? Or what about a client that could use Fast Track or K-Lite and use proxies. Now that would ROCK since you can disable the search for files from same user. If we get more countries involved that don't have a copyright law then we stand a better chance at defeating the RIAA and going about our business as usual. This is the best deal I've heard so far. We may not be stuck with ES5 for ever thank God.

Voodoohippie
(Defender of FREE cyberspace)

Damn it people don't you know anything? There's a war between religions in Palestina/Israël. I think the palestinians have better to do then protect americans(wich by the way are helping Israël) from the riaa.

[John W. Lindh]

I think it's time somebody founds a epidemic-to-gnutella/hybridclient/openminded/gravity /martinebertmuc fanclub.

As for Krell's reply that the RIAA could use simple hosts who would become proxies to intercept users - that's not necessarily the point of failure I see, but you are right. There is no system that is 100% anonymous (not even freenet). And even worse, a high degree of anonymity and great efficiency as far as data transfers are concerned are two goals that can not be reached at the same time.

The best protection against the RIAA is using small trusted networks, like WASTE or DirectConnect.

[Sephiroth]

Look proxies just dont work they would make things slow and you were kicked off The GDF for spamming this, your "buddy list" ideas too.

You have no experiance with p2p networks and your just trying stealing ideas from instant messanging, and other networks like irc or freenet, and anon http proxies, adding some nice sounding buzzwords and pretending that you know what your talking about because you really dont know anything.

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

Healthy human understanding must be enough

[Sephiroth]

No its not, when talking about p2p network designs your dealing with machines here not people.

Its easy for anyone to try to create a frankenstien p2p network like you by stealing ideas from here to there but just because it works somewheres else doesnt mean that it will work the exact same any network.

Yet every single one who has done this you included have all tired to get others to implement their insane, unrealistic ideas that wont work and you all expect to get credit for it even though there is no orginal thought or anything new. And i think everyone has had enough of that crap being posted here.

[MP3Pr0]

I am totally lost when trying to understand your idea. So here's mine, in layman's terms:

A decentralized P2P network like Gnutella, in which everyone is connected to an average of 2-5 peers. Every peer would act as a proxy for their connected peers. So, if I'm connected to peer A and peer B, I would act as a proxy for both of them. If peer A broadcasted a search request, it would go through me and anyone else surrounding him (his "neighbors"). We would continue to broadcast the request as if it originated from us, and once we receive replies, we would forward them back to peer A. Downloading would occur in the same way, with us "passing" the data to peer A while he remains anonymous.

But what about the data being "passed" around? What if an RIAA scumbag is proxying data for a peer, and notices it's an MP3 file? Each node would have a simple 128-bit public encryption key, which would be included in all its broadcasts. When other peers respond to a broadcast, they would encrypt their responses with the originator's public key. So, only the originator could read the responses, even though they are being forwarded through multiple nodes.

To help eliminate ISP traffic monitoring, node-to-node encryption would be used for peer-to-peer traffic, using random ports at random intervals. Each node would inform their neighboring nodes of each coming port change well in advance, so not to abandon their neighbors.

Special nodes would keep track of peers on the network, and would be used as connecting points to the network. Basically like WinMX's peer cache servers. These special nodes would be enabled voluntarily.

Other features: a decentralized file rating system, firewall penetration, undecipherable keyword searches (which would return the same matches as normal keyword searches), etc.

This is a VERY simplified form of my idea. I'm sure a lot of people will flame it. But others will see the possibilities.

[epidemic-to-gnutella]

@ sepiroth: I dunno why your topic is the ownership of an idea. Because you havent contributed anything yet toward this constructive ? We develop and we have no mind from where the idea is, everyone is contributing.

@> Special nodes would keep track of peers on the network, and would be used as connecting points to the network. Basically like WinMX's peer cache servers. These special nodes would be enabled voluntarily. <

Hi i like your proposal, It is exactly what i ment.
What ybout this suggestionto your roposal:

We need not extra-nodes for the connecting to a network, we only need a normal gnutella connect, and then users cand ecide if they want to connect in normal way or in the tealty way. if they choose stealth way, the are a proxy for the peers.

Then the client - now transformed into a proxy, search or identifies other peers as well as a proxy.

Then they connect and perform a second network out of proxying peers.

So you do not need any bootstrapping.

If you want to have supernodes for the contact to the network

I woudl ike to suggest to use www.efarm-project.net servers combined with a gnucleus, so that they can work as a proxy starting point for 3 networks: ed2k, gntuella and the decentral proxy network

thanks

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by epidemic-to-gnutella
@ sepiroth: I dunno why your topic is the ownership of an idea. Because you havent contributed anything yet toward this constructive ? We develop and we have no mind from where the idea is, everyone is contributing.


Because you dont have any orginal ideas and because you dont know anything about how p2p protocols work you really cannot come up with anything new which is why you have to "borrow" others ideas and just market them.

Which you can do that someplace else from now on.

[Vlet]

This is basically what you're describing:

http://thalassocracy.org/achord/achord-iptps.html

"AChord" is a variant on the "Chord" network protocol developed at MIT.

It's a VERY interesting article if you are interested in these sorts of matters.

[Vlet]

"Instead of your ISP, the Proxynetwork is used. Gnutelle never connects to you ISP, Gnurtella connects always Internal to your proxy-Servent on your Harddisk." - This is illogical. You are still using your ISP just like you would be using standard Gnutella. ALl you are doing is connecting to a middle-man server who will be proxying the data you want, not using him as an ISP. Do you know what an ISP is? Your ISP is your connection to the internet dude. Your TCP stack is making a request to the IP 12.34.43.21, and once connected sends a packet telling that node that you wish information from host X. How will you mask this information? If someone is monitoring your connection with a packetsniffer etc. on the ISP's end, they would see a packet being sent saying something like "Hi proxy, I'd like some pirated material from this other dude located at 33.44.22.11, can you please send it to me". Great, now you've managed to get one more person on the RIAA's shit list.

In the beginning there, you seemed to be describing AChord a bit, but once you went onto the business about "Instead of your ISP, the Proxynetwork is used. Gnutelle never connects to you ISP" you started talking nonsense.

The ISP stuff aside, as far as the proxy matrix goes, all this will do is simply set off 3 alarms @ the RIAA headquarters instead of just 2. They will clearly see node A is sending node B the file copyrighted_material.mp3, and B is sending it to C. Just because you didn't specifically authorize someone to send a specific file does not make it legal, and just because you didn't actually download a particular copyrighted file doesn't make it legal to transfer it. Everyone who proxies will simply be aiding in the piracy of copyrighted material.

Have you thought about what this mean for bandwidth as well? In order to maintain a proper proxy scheme, each node would have to be responsible for proxying 2 other nodes, leaving you with only a third of your original bandwidth.

[Vlet]

The fact is that in order to transfer data using the infrastructure we have now, it must pass along privately owned and monitored networks. If you wish to remain safe in doing such a thing, strong crypto is the ONLY way.

[isamoor]

I think this gnutella guy was smoking a lot of crack.

I do think he had a basis to start with. The iip people and some of the freenet people seem to be working on the new i2p protocal. I don't know any specifics, but it is being developed. I'm sure they know what they are doing better than this epedemic guy did.

I would suggest just waiting around and letting this matter rest until there is a public release. That would settle most of these wild rumors.

Some of what he said might be true, but some of it also sounds like he was smoking pot at the time.

Later,

Isamoor

[Theinfamousone]

The idea of having centralized proxies is absolutely ludacris being that there are millions of people transfering billions of files a month, many very large, you can't expect the three proxies in Palestine to be able to handle all that. Proxying within the users isn't a good idea because the network will be half as fast (most are already pretty slow). Freenet has the right idea because it caches commonly used files. That way it doesn't have to have a live proxy.

Freenet sounds good on paper, and might have something when it distributes more bandwidth to the more powerful connections, but from what I've seen, it's a long way from being a viable alternative. If we could get all the Kazaa newbies to go to that, then we'd have something because Kazaa newbies aren't very "gimme gimme" with their files. They download an occasional mp3 and that's why there is so much bandwidth to spare in that network. People on edonkey and winmx are amazingly selfish. The problem with Kazaa now is that probably half the people don't share because they're afraid of getting caught. The newbies wont go there until they see an interface almost identical to the simplicity of Kazaa. If they knew they were anonymous, they wouldn't worry about it anymore and Freenet could really take off.

It's all about UDP and checksums. The UDP system is hard to track down the IP address. The problem is that it loses packets in the process commonly, but if they could mark each packet with a number or something, so it could check to make sure it has all the packets at the end, and then redownload the ones it needs until it has them all, we could overcome that problem.