Untraceable File-Sharing Algorithm

[qprider]

sup ... I'm a grad student in computer science and I thought I'd take a shot at creating a absolutely untraceable file-sharing algorithm, no caveats, no 'almost untraceable' ... just absolutely impossible to trace. I think I've come up with something pretty darn good, but the people on this forum are no doubt much more knowledgeable about this field than I am.

So, I open my algorithm up to the comments of the community :) ...

http://www.strangebunny.com/sharing.php

- Thanks,

Victor Palmer
AIM: goodtimes9863
email: goodtimes9863@hotmail.com

[Afn]

I described a system that would eliminate sharing files and replace it with a system that would search and share numerical patterns of files, but not the files themselves.

1. create all known variations of 1kb into a look up list
2. hash the file to the list
3. hash the file name
4. share the numerical pointers to the hashed list, but not the files themselves.
5. download and upload lists of pointers
6. autogenerate the file by hashing the pointer list in reverse from a database of all known combinations of 1kb or larger on the destination machine.

[qprider]

The only problem with the algorithm you proposed is that even by sharing 'numerical patterns' of files (as you have described them) you are still legally responsible for sharing copyrighted material.

The problem is that a given a 'numerical pattern' I can always easily backtransform it to the original file ... so even though I'm not sharing the original file, I theoretically could know that I am sharing copyrighted material (by backtransforming='autogenerating', whatever), and that makes me liable.

For example, it's still illegal to share ZIPed versions of copyrighted files ... even though those ZIP files are not the files themselves. Because I can readily uncompress a ZIP file and check its contents, I could know that I'm sharing copyrighted material and I would thus be liable. In fact, if you think about it, you're algorithm is precisely another compression scheme. And looked at in such a light, your algorithm would go something like:

2. Compress the file.
3. Compress the filename.
4. Advertise the compressed version of the copyrighted file
5. Upload the compressed version of the copyrighted file (still illegal)
6. Decompress the file.

In my algorithm, I've tried to mix encryption into the file-sharing algorithm precisely to counter this effect. If a person shares an encrypted version of a copyrighted file - AND doesn't have the key to that encryption - there is NO possible way to for him to know that he is sharing a copyrighted work, and thus he cannot be liable for copyright violation.

- Victor

[notbob]

I described a system that would eliminate sharing files and replace it with a system that would search and share numerical patterns of files, but not the files themselves.

1. create all known variations of 1kb into a look up list
2. hash the file to the list
3. hash the file name
4. share the numerical pointers to the hashed list, but not the files themselves.
5. download and upload lists of pointers
6. autogenerate the file by hashing the pointer list in reverse from a database of all known combinations of 1kb or larger on the destination machine.


wow all you need is trillions of combinations and a database the size of texas to share files (and a computer with more processing power and data storage than a supercluster at los alamos)?

what are the negatives?

[Afn]

The only problem with the algorithm you proposed is that even by sharing 'numerical patterns' of files (as you have described them) you are still legally responsible for sharing copyrighted material.

The problem is that a given a 'numerical pattern' I can always easily backtransform it to the original file ... so even though I'm not sharing the original file, I theoretically could know that I am sharing copyrighted material (by backtransforming='autogenerating', whatever), and that makes me liable.

For example, it's still illegal to share ZIPed versions of copyrighted files ... even though those ZIP files are not the files themselves. Because I can readily uncompress a ZIP file and check its contents, I could know that I'm sharing copyrighted material and I would thus be liable. In fact, if you think about it, you're algorithm is precisely another compression scheme. And looked at in such a light, your algorithm would go something like:

2. Compress the file.
3. Compress the filename.
4. Advertise the compressed version of the copyrighted file
5. Upload the compressed version of the copyrighted file (still illegal)
6. Decompress the file.

In my algorithm, I've tried to mix encryption into the file-sharing algorithm precisely to counter this effect. If a person shares an encrypted version of a copyrighted file - AND doesn't have the key to that encryption - there is NO possible way to for him to know that he is sharing a copyrighted work, and thus he cannot be liable for copyright violation.

- VictorYou could add additional layers, still with any proposed system, once the file is de-encrypted at some point, you have a possible liablity issue. Even if you had an optimized hash list system, large enough database (mysql references up to a billion records) they could not claim you copied the file because you did not.

Ok, so that will not work. Now what if you had a robot or computer that viewed, watched, read or listened to a work, and then was able to recreate the work in the robot's or computer's brain (1)?

let's play with the idea... (2) a computer views the work and makes slight modifications that does not change the material, just inserts or compresses it. A computer sees an episode of ST:NG or all eps of a series, for example, and then creates a program called Star Nut and creates a synthetic version of the program retaining all elements but in a compressed or different form than the original.


After reading this, you may think I am on acid, but think of this, if copyright exists, google would not be possible, you would have to get "permission" to use any text for any reason, and fair use, a powerful and important educational device would be replaced with a system of information haves and information have nots.

And that is exactly what is happening. When you get critical mass of have nots, you get a french revolution.

[cpugeniusmv]

It doesn't matter how many times you encrypt, compress, or rename copyrighted material--you're still sharing it, and it has to be reassembled at some point.

And as long as you're on the (current) internet, you can't hide the IP addresses of computers connected to one another (despite efforts). Sure, you can proxy all you want to...but eventually the file has to get to the person that wants it.

Complete anonymity is not possible on the current internet.

[MushroomheadXIII]

I'm no programmer, but why not create a program to convert files into .txt and share them with random names and codes, and then have the same program to join em together while downloading?

[cpugeniusmv]

I'm no programmer, but why not create a program to convert files into .txt and share them with random names and codes, and then have the same program to join em together while downloading?
All files are made up of text, it's just not human-readable. The file extension will make no difference.

Add on splitting and rejoining, and you've got every multi-source p2p application already available.

[Afn]

It doesn't matter how many times you encrypt, compress, or rename copyrighted material--you're still sharing it, and it has to be reassembled at some point.

If 60 million people think copyright is archaic, and use the system against itself, there is nothing the corporations can do to stop 50 or 100 million people. Cars at the turn of the century in the 1900's were fined for spooking horses and other nonsense laws.

Copyright will go the same way as the millions of people wake up and take control of the political process. It is just a matter of time.

[crackerjacker]

It doesn't matter how many times you encrypt, compress, or rename copyrighted material--you're still sharing it, and it has to be reassembled at some point.

And as long as you're on the (current) internet, you can't hide the IP addresses of computers connected to one another (despite efforts). Sure, you can proxy all you want to...but eventually the file has to get to the person that wants it.

Complete anonymity is not possible on the current internet.

ditto that.
:)

[Afn]

The only problem with the algorithm you proposed is that even by sharing 'numerical patterns' of files (as you have described them) you are still legally responsible for sharing copyrighted material.

Numbers can not be copyrighted.

A split key system with multiple layers of encryption would be the best approach.

A system needs 4 things 1. wide area easy que/subscription 2. wide area search 3. multiple levels of encryption to obsure the source and the destination. 4. multiple senders that store chunks of files encrypted, but do not know what the encrypted block is used for.

An underground waste network like napshare that relays newsgroups might be a realistic target for development.

[Roamerick]

You may want top check out "The Big Hack"

It runs somewhere along the same lines :)

http://thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=106&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

[eivioolla]

sup ... I'm a grad student in computer science and I thought I'd take a shot at creating a absolutely untraceable file-sharing algorithm, no caveats, no 'almost untraceable' ... just absolutely impossible to trace. I think I've come up with something pretty darn good, but the people on this forum are no doubt much more knowledgeable about this field than I am.

So, I open my algorithm up to the comments of the community :) ...

http://www.strangebunny.com/sharing.php

- Thanks,

Victor Palmer
AIM: goodtimes9863
email: goodtimes9863@hotmail.com

I hope you don't think this idea is new. Google for Freenet, MUTE, ANTs, I2P, TOR, Nodezilla, Entropy etc for starters. All of them use an idea more or less like this one, none of them works in practise. In other words, there has been more attempts to implement this than you can count, and not a single one of them is usable. I can't pin point the exact reason for failure, but they are all insanely slow and don't seem to scale.

[Dave_Man]

i use tor all the time..
never had any problems..
the speed has slowed down.. but thats the price for privacy.

[eivioolla]

i use tor all the time..
never had any problems..
the speed has slowed down.. but thats the price for privacy.

Oh? What do you use it for? What kind of speeds are we talking about? Maybe I should try it. I haven't tried that one, I just presumed that if it worked I would have heard about it. :)

[eivioolla]

And as long as you're on the (current) internet, you can't hide the IP addresses of computers connected to one another (despite efforts). Sure, you can proxy all you want to...but eventually the file has to get to the person that wants it.

Yes you can always prove that someone relayed encrypted data to you. If you can actually sue for that, ISPs are going to be in trouble.

You can also use UDP and spoof the source address. It was used in SUMI, I saw it working by downloading a file where every incoming packet had obviously different random IP. Unfortunately the project seems to be discontinued. And of course the minus side is that ISPs could easily drop packets with false addresses if they so choose.

[aqlo]

create all known variations of 1kb into a look up list
a database of all known combinations of 1kb or larger

AFN has tried this one before yes, but he can't do math at all
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=24774&page=1&pp=15

To start with, in binary, the simplest form of computer notation, the number of possible combinations of an array is equal to the maximum value of the array. And don't knock binary, every other form of notation is worse than this. So in a single byte for example, the total number of possible combinations is 2 to the 8th power, or 256, with the actual combinations running from 0 to 255. Are you with me so far?

Good, because the total number of possible combinations for a kilobyte is 2 to 8,192nd power. This is a 1 followed by 2,466 more digits. For comparison, a billion is only a 1 followed by 9 more digits. So this number of possibilities is significantly more than the number of potential individual subatomic particles altogether inclusively in every single discrete universe implied by even the most far-out physics theories. I won't even go on about the k of storage necessary for each individual potential kilobyte, due the field size also being controlled by the maximum potential value, it isn't worthwhile.

But let's just assume for a moment that after more time than can possibly exist, long after every potential serial universe has vanished into the outer darkness and reality has moved on to other more impressive things than multiverses of any kind, your program could finish calculating and your database could exist. At that point, after all that effort, you go into court. The prosecutor shows that your text file has a direct correspondence to the copyrighted work in question, by extracting the work using your software; and all you have to say for yourself is "It's not possible to copyright a list of numbers! waaaa waaaaaaa!" You are SO busted.

Still don't get the "algorithm" the original poster stuck up, seems to be something one would make in pbrush for a marketing presentation. On a farm.

[eivioolla]

Still don't get the "algorithm" the original poster stuck up, seems to be something one would make in pbrush for a marketing presentation. On a farm.

It's the same old idea of proxying encrypted data via peers that we have seen failing so many times before. Freenet has been trying to get it working for ten years give or take a few with no avail. Haven't tried TOR though, that one guy there said it might work. :)

[aqlo]

Ok so what we want, in the "algorithm", is an old-gnutella style nodeless relayed search system with data coming back along similar nodeless relay through proxies, with a bulletin-board "look and feel" for the gui.

That's Frost™ (http://www.zeropaid.com/frost/) in a nutshell.

[cpugeniusmv]

And of course the minus side is that ISPs could easily drop packets with false addresses if they so choose.
Many, if not most, do.

[eivioolla]

Many, if not most, do.

Of course you might still be able to spoof addresses from the same subnet. I think that's one thing that should at least investigated a bit further. This proxy-node stuff has already gotten more tries than necessary. If it can work at all, one of the current projects surely get it working eventually. I have never seen wheel being invented all over again as many times as this relaying-encrypted-traffic-via-peers.

[Ne007]

How about a program that noobs would download.....label it "download accelerator".....label it a million different enticing names.

It allows us to leech off of them as they become a centralized server....hell...we could upload files to their computer.....store whatever.....without them knowing it....sorta like a trojan, but not quite since they are getting enhanced computer features.

IT WILL OPTIMIZE THEIR COMPUTER THOUGH! ...hmmm.....computer optimizer.....optimize your computer......I like.

OF course it would be adware and spyware free.

Plus the media would have a hayday with this.....letting the world know that you could be sharing files without even knowing it.....giving all filesharers plausable deniability.

[tsafa1]

don't let these other people discourage you. If you have an idea you should give it a shot. All the other anonymous p2p programs while showing great promise also have their short commings. But you should study them an try to figure out how they work and try to improve upon it. Mute and Ants at the moment have made the most advacement in the anonymous/speed goal. They are both open source and invite people to build upon them. That would be a good place for you to start.

[notbob]

How about a program that noobs would download.....label it "download accelerator".....label it a million different enticing names.

It allows us to leech off of them as they become a centralized server....hell...we could upload files to their computer.....store whatever.....without them knowing it....sorta like a trojan, but not quite since they are getting enhanced computer features.

IT WILL OPTIMIZE THEIR COMPUTER THOUGH! ...hmmm.....computer optimizer.....optimize your computer......I like.

OF course it would be adware and spyware free.

Plus the media would have a hayday with this.....letting the world know that you could be sharing files without even knowing it.....giving all filesharers plausable deniability.

i like his idea

it's the most plausible i have ever seen

[Lehk]

sup ... I'm a grad student in computer science and I thought I'd take a shot at creating a absolutely untraceable file-sharing algorithm, no caveats, no 'almost untraceable' ... just absolutely impossible to trace. I think I've come up with something pretty darn good, but the people on this forum are no doubt much more knowledgeable about this field than I am.

So, I open my algorithm up to the comments of the community :) ...

http://www.strangebunny.com/sharing.php

- Thanks,

Victor Palmer
AIM: goodtimes9863
email: goodtimes9863@hotmail.com

Nice Try but it won't work.
A) flood the network with evil catherine
A1) evil catherine corrupts the files

B) flood the network with evil bob
B1) evil bob serves corrupt files
B2) evil bob serves out unencrypted data
B2a)evil alice gets unencrypted copyrighted file from catherine
B2b)catherine gets sued
B3) evil bob sends out valid files but screws up the key

C) flood the network with evil alice
C1) now bob and catherine are throwing around a ton of data for no good reason

also what you described seems like a vastly inferior version of freenet.

[Ne007]

i like his idea

it's the most plausible i have ever seen


Hey thanks...I will label this P2P ap "hostile nodes".

All of us could infect ourselves at first in order to get this thing going......

[fnordprefect]

It's the same old idea of proxying encrypted data via peers that we have seen failing so many times before. Freenet has been trying to get it working for ten years give or take a few with no avail. Haven't tried TOR though, that one guy there said it might work. :)

Freenet is not a filesharing application, neither is TOR, I2P nor Nodezilla.
You can use the networks these programs create for filesharing, but that is not their primary/only purpose.

Freenet has a filesharing/messaging app call Frost (and others) but you need big bandwidth and a node running 24/7 to get decent performance.

TOR has been exploited by filesharers for anonymous Bittorrent, but the TOR server operators are starting to block BT ports to prevent it overwhelming their other traffic.
TOR's biggest use is for proxying WWW and email traffic.

I2P is similar to TOR.

Nodezilla is based on grid networks and Freenet's FEC file encoding and caching. It seems to work pretty well, but the source code for the main program has not been opened yet so I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole until then.

[Afn]

don't let these other people discourage you. If you have an idea you should give it a shot. All the other anonymous p2p programs while showing great promise also have their short commings. But you should study them an try to figure out how they work and try to improve upon it. Mute and Ants at the moment have made the most advacement in the anonymous/speed goal. They are both open source and invite people to build upon them. That would be a good place for you to start.
Yeah, you never know when a single idea can branch into a useful program. I still think lightly encrypted networks in volume is enough to swamp any attempts in social control. The problem is to build the network that filters "bad operators", corporations and other entities not wanted.

If the network was large enough, there would be no way to stop it.

[eivioolla]

Freenet is not a filesharing application, neither is TOR, I2P nor Nodezilla.
You can use the networks these programs create for filesharing, but that is not their primary/only purpose.

Freenet has a filesharing/messaging app call Frost (and others) but you need big bandwidth and a node running 24/7 to get decent performance.

TOR has been exploited by filesharers for anonymous Bittorrent, but the TOR server operators are starting to block BT ports to prevent it overwhelming their other traffic.
TOR's biggest use is for proxying WWW and email traffic.

I2P is similar to TOR.

Nodezilla is based on grid networks and Freenet's FEC file encoding and caching. It seems to work pretty well, but the source code for the main program has not been opened yet so I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole until then.

How is any of that relevant to the piece you quoted?

Besides, file sharing, file transfer, distribution, call it what you will, it's just playing with semantics. It's about transferring data from A to B and all of the above mentioned networks approach the problem with the same idea of relaying traffic via network of peers.

[fnordprefect]

It's relevant because what you posted, and what I quoted, was wrong on some points.
You mentioned the other programs back on page 1, what you said there was also wrong.

[eivioolla]

It's relevant because what you posted, and what I quoted, was wrong on some points.
You mentioned the other programs back on page 1, what you said there was also wrong.

Wrong how? You quoted a piece that doesn't say anything about filesharing and then go on about how Freenet is not filesharing.

Personally I don't find the difference important, even a filesharing application needs an underlying transfer method, which is what this whole discussion is about: transferring data in an untraceable way. Which is exactly what the above mentioned networks attempt to achieve.

[infringer]

Complete annomity is not possible its finding the happy medium to where you can share and slim down your chances of getting caught without having to proxy enourmous amounts of data...

Its a tough challange no one so far has really came to a set stage or the super P2P yet kinda been a little progress in differnt areas and then lacking in others...

I think however encryption is not a bad idea espicially when sharing with groups dont think for one minute that your ISP is not in on the monitoring of your habbits... Contrary to popular belief they are right there monitoring the middle man so to speak so I see nothing wrong with trading encrypted and renamed content as long as the files get automatically switched back to there original name ....

One idea is to have a complete mix and mash of keys when you logon a network you get a specified key and send out the specified key and a public key for file decryption...

Theres gotta be a way to use keys much like chatting back and forth and exchanging text and having encrypted chat while still offering an end to end type encryption.

something on that order...

-infringer-

[Dave_Man]

eivioolla, I use tor mainly for surfing, it does slow site loading although i don't mind it that much couse i open lots of tabs together.

I used it for tracker communication in bit torrent (using azureus) and got pretty much the same speeds i usually get.
It does take alittle more time to connect to the tracker and to do scrapes but it might be important with all the tracker logs starting to fall to the bad hands..

u should try it, see how it goes for you..

Dave Man.

[WillemB]

Isn't it so that it is always tracable

Your ISP stores all connections you've had.
All they have to do is prove you and the person you've connected to, have a P2P client running.
Listening to the protocol will verify this.
And then prove that the data is copyrighted.

IMO your just as well off with a fast direct connect with SSL.

[Afn]

Isn't it so that it is always tracable

Your ISP stores all connections you've had.
All they have to do is prove you and the person you've connected to, have a P2P client running.
Listening to the protocol will verify this.
And then prove that the data is copyrighted.

IMO your just as well off with a fast direct connect with SSL.
It does not matter. What people find useful they will share. Books, magazines are all shared. Hollywood wants to prevent the mass distribution of sharing. Will not work. Sharing is superior to control, and control leads to tyranny.

What they want to do, is to control your mind so you do not want to share anything, they do this by propaganda and manipulation of the laws. Share and the festering sore of tyranny gets smaller.

[Psilaxs]

Yeah, you never know when a single idea can branch into a useful program. I still think lightly encrypted networks in volume is enough to swamp any attempts in social control. The problem is to build the network that filters "bad operators", corporations and other entities not wanted.

If the network was large enough, there would be no way to stop it.


Not to shoot you down, but i will translate what aqlo said to you in English; since aqlo is an advanced person and sometimes people have trouble understanding what he is saying.

Your database scheme is not possible, because there are not enough atoms in this world to store all possible combinations. It is the googol (not a typo, look it up) paradox. Googol is a number so large there is not enough physical matter in the entire universe to write that number out. so how can it exist?

To give you a visual concept (let's see if the boards can handle this)

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.

This is the storage required for 1 file, I will let you put the commas in so you can count; but there is 2,400 zeros there (even less than what AQLO stated, which is 2,466 zeros). Now what are you going to do if you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of files? Or worse yet, millions like on the BIG networks.

For one file you are looking at a number 62 times the size of duodecillion. You would need the storage space of 91 brontobytes to store one file. A brontobyte is a thousand yottabytes.

[Afn]

Not to shoot you down,This is the storage required for 1 file, I will let you put the commas in so you can count; but there is 2,400 zeros there (even less than what AQLO stated, which is 2,466 zeros). Now what are you going to do if you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of files? Or worse yet, millions like on the BIG networks.

For one file you are looking at a number 62 times the size of duodecillion. You would need the storage space of 91 brontobytes to store one file. A brontobyte is a thousand yottabytes.I knew that the file size would be large, but did not think out the actual math behind it. If the network used decentralized storage, turning every harddrive connected to your program or a portion of it into a single networked drive, in volume you might have critical mass.

yottabytes!

Psilaxs, I think the solution will be Self programming computers. When that happens it will make copyright meaningless, or a mess... perhaps both.

is yottabytes related to yodabytes? What is that yottabytes^1000?

I remember googleplexes being the largest number conceptulalization when I was in school.

[tsafa1]

Sounds like an original Idea. Why not check out the papers on Ants and Mute. Start from there since both projects are open source. No need to reinvent the wheel, these two provide denyability by node proxying. Everyone is a middle-man for everyone else. You will find that many problems that you want to solve have already been solved. You will also find that new problems exist as a result of these new solutions.

After you study what has already been done in this area, you can decide if you want to join one of the projects and help improve it or if you want to start from scratch a new network design. Even if you do want to start your own network you can use some of the stuff already done. If you rely want to create your own network, you beter be prepared to spend a lot of time on this project and deal with a lot of ingratefull people who will talk trash about your work regardless how good it is. Sorry but this is a tough crowd, you got to be ready to deal with it.

You will find info on these projects at the Source Forge.

[notbob]

I knew that the file size would be large, but did not think out the actual math behind it. If the network used decentralized storage, turning every harddrive connected to your program or a portion of it into a single networked drive, in volume you might have critical mass.

yottabytes!

Psilaxs, I think the solution will be Self programming computers. When that happens it will make copyright meaningless, or a mess... perhaps both.

is yottabytes related to yodabytes? What is that yottabytes^1000?

I remember googleplexes being the largest number conceptulalization when I was in school.


kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zeta, yotta

a yottabyte is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 10^24 bytes or 1,000,000,000,000 TB

big

really fucking big

[Abyss00]

I hope you don't think this idea is new. Google for Freenet, MUTE, ANTs, I2P, TOR, Nodezilla, Entropy etc for starters. All of them use an idea more or less like this one, none of them works in practise. In other words, there has been more attempts to implement this than you can count, and not a single one of them is usable. I can't pin point the exact reason for failure, but they are all insanely slow and don't seem to scale.

Winny & Share both scale just fine.

MUTE, Ants, Winny, & Share all download faster for me then eDonkey does.

[method]

I'm sure if you'll look back over the past 2 years of my posts on ZP you'll find a few where I've mentioned this idea... and we're talking 12 months ago or even later... this is far from a new idea... we just need to see a decent working version with reasonable-speed-transfers and we'll be supportive!!

[Psilaxs]

I knew that the file size would be large, but did not think out the actual math behind it. If the network used decentralized storage, turning every harddrive connected to your program or a portion of it into a single networked drive, in volume you might have critical mass.

yottabytes!

Psilaxs, I think the solution will be Self programming computers. When that happens it will make copyright meaningless, or a mess... perhaps both.

is yottabytes related to yodabytes? What is that yottabytes^1000?

I remember googleplexes being the largest number conceptulalization when I was in school.

Ignore yottabytes, I said BRONCOBYTES, (it sounds like something from the Flintstones, but it is indeed a real mathematical term for "holy fucking shit, you mean a number that big actually exists!! Jesus Christ!") and 91 one of them at that. That type of storage does not exist in the WORLD. Do a lookup on google about googol. It is so huge that it cannot even be put to the ^ power using numbers, words have to be used.

Does that explain any better the storage issues behind this method? A quick reference for numbers so huge they are inane. http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php

[WillemB]

Ignore yottabytes, I said BRONCOBYTES, (it sounds like something from the Flintstones, but it is indeed a real mathematical term for "holy fucking shit, you mean a number that big actually exists!! Jesus Christ!") and 91 one of them at that. That type of storage does not exist in the WORLD. Do a lookup on google about googol. It is so huge that it cannot even be put to the ^ power using numbers, words have to be used.

Does that explain any better the storage issues behind this method? A quick reference for numbers so huge they are inane. http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php


Try the (10^10^10^10^......repeat many times.... ^10)! notation :black

[Psilaxs]

Try the (10^10^10^10^......repeat many times.... ^10)! notation :black

Go to the link i provided and you will see that even 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ~ is not enough. People have no idea how huge these numbers are. You are talking about something with squilions of zeros after it.

[littlebeagle]

I've just read the algorithm and your website, please god tell me you don't use kazaa!

[crackerjacker]

I am sexy.

Yes you are quite sexy.
Well thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.

[WillemB]

you forgot the factorial in the (10^10^10....)! notation :P

Then if that isn't enough do the 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...and many more factorial thingemedings

[larytet0]

Alice makes a request to the entire file-sharing community ... to no one in particular.

this is exaclty how LOOK works in Rodi (http://larytet.sourceforge.net/btRat.shtml)

Now Bob sends this <BOX> to Catherine, a neutral 3rd party file-sharer.
This one is not new and implemented in many networks (Mute, Freenet, Ants to name few)
Rodi bouncer does this - proxy of the data

[FreakShow!]

Of course we could seal a computer deep underground our houses, with a few hidden plugs to gain access to it and every so often tell it to download what we want then unplug the peripherals and put them back into your other pc or a box or somethin so if you are unlucky enough to have a knock on the door from the RIAA they will come in search the house and find your only PC is actually complelty payed for with nothing incriminating. How, bout that for an idea?

[Afn]

How, bout that for an idea?

Encryption is easier.

In 15 years I expect to tell my computer or robot what I want, and the network will create the software.

Intellectual property? Some will exist, but not much.