[BitTorrent] BT2 & hash trees

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Wed Jul 28 17:48:03 EDT 2004

Elliott Mitchell wrote:

>>From: Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>
>>Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>>This assumes you can find the same file on their networks. Possible, but
>>>highly non-trivial. This would also require a lot of work to keep them
>No comment on the above?
The assumption that the same files can not be finded in the filesharing 
network is false.
Actually, when a torrent die and Shareaza users have incomplete 
torrents, thay are able to (Manually - sic.) search for the single files 
over the networks Shareaza connect.
But they need to search using keywords and looking for the right 
filesize, hoping to find the right copy of the files.

>>>Does anyone have plans to implement such a feature on any client? I
>>>suppose it is a thought, but I'm *very* doubtful of the usefulness.
>>Shareaza already implement  Gnutella/G2/eDonkey2000/BitTorrent protocols 
>>and networks
>>It can also search for alternate sources for dead torrents using G2.
>Hmm, with them implementing that many, perhaps implementing one more
>won't be a problem. Has BT1's failure to follow THEX's recommendations
>harmed its popularity? Will following THEX actually save them a
>significant amount of work?
The problem is not implementing a new Torrent standard inside Shareaza, 
I suppose this is possible but will require additional efforts.
The problem is to keep the various standard compatible each others so it 
is possible find the same data from different sources in different networks.
The Internet is all about common standards. They help the users and the 
developers giving them a bigger audience and a greater value.

As for your questions, I think no and no.
But the questions could be others:
1) Does BT follow common standards with other P2P networks could give 
better performance/experience to users?
2) Does BT follow a different standard help its users?

>>If BT2 implement standard THEX and standard hashes it could work even 
>>better than now.
>Better in what way?
Just now, when downloading using BT Shareaza rely only itself and other 
BT clients in the same torrent.
If the tracker is down, Shareaza need to find another Shareaza peer that 
is downloading or seeding the same torrent (it use the trackerless 
torrent feature).
If the .torrent file have the  TTH, SHA1 and CMD4 hashes  of the files , 
it could be able to download the missing data from the filesharing  
networks (with or without using a BT application).

This would help Shareaza and all BT clients connected to Shareaza, 
because Shareaza could act like a bridge for them.

Then could be possible to implement different way to download the same 
data (because with the same hashes we know that it is the same data).
BT for fast-flash-short-time demand, filesharing for stable-continuous 
This also would improve the density of the newtork making available more 
data, faster.

>As to THEX, because it isn't designed that well? I admit it will work,
>but the method of distinguishing leaves and internal nodes is extremely
>expensive to test if you don't already know the answer (a *full*
>unconditional factor of two).
As someone else noted the difference is really negligible.
And the CPU cycles are cheap compared to the bandwidth
Again, even if this is not the most efficient way, will developing a new 
system give more?

>Those implement BitTorrent as a secondary transfer mode, not a primary
>one. They are P2P apps of another form before they are BT clients. Please
>list a program that is a BT client first that handles the other transfer
Are there any real differences from Shareaza using BT than Azureus using G2?
Apart the implementation difficulties to implement filesharing networks 
in a torrent applications.

Gnutella/G2 and BT work very differently, this is because it is worth to 
implement eithers.
Shareaza implemented G2 like a way to have all the features Gnutella 
have with an easy and extensible packet structure, that enable other 
services or custom features to be developed using the network.
eDonkey was implemented because it have a bigger userbase, many more 
bigger files and many release sites (and many bad features like long 
queues, etc.).
BitTorrent was implemented for the fast-flash ability to serve selected 
file(s) with a sustained speed.
I hope other, with time, will be the protocols implemented in Shareaza 
(DC, nntp, etc.).
All of them are different from the others, so they can give different 
features to the users.

The only real requirement is that all network and protocols will be 
implemented in a way that don't harm the other  clients and networks.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    BitTorrent-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

More information about the BitTorrent mailing list