digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The Pirate Bay Sees a Future Without BitTorrent

torrentfreak.com — The guys from The Pirate Bay are always working on interesting side-projects, but there is one in particular that ’s so significant, it might be the future of filesharing. For a while now, they have been working on a brand new protocol - which may come to replace BitTorrent in the near future.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtomBoyz, on 11/05/2007, -66/+40Excellent Find! I'm looking forward to hearing updates about this new protocol.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 11/05/2007, -7/+181Thank you, Mr. Generic Man.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/31/2007, -26/+3Captain Generic?
        • hellokittyownsu, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1Captain is not generic. Mr. on the other hand is.
    • fkr3, on 11/03/2007, -51/+9The only thing TPB is working on is purely-legal revenue streams they can try and divert thepiratebay traffic to, so when the day comes that they have to shut TPB down they can still make money.
      • skatastrophy, on 10/31/2007, -2/+32Interesting new technologies to distribute files over the internet isn't inherently illegal activity. All similar technologies have wide ranging, legal applications.
        • actorboy, on 10/31/2007, -12/+14You did notice, however, that he was referring to the Pirate Bay.
          • gyrfalcon, on 11/05/2007, -7/+3You did notice, however, that I dugg you both down for being stupid? The Pirate Bay has legal and illegal files...
        • fkr3, on 10/31/2007, -11/+14Of course there are legal uses, I'm not saying P2P and file sharing is strictly illegal. Personally I think legal use of it is probably insignificant by comparison to illegal use, but that's not the fault of the protocol.
          • takeda, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I think you're right, but if not for pirating, we would still only use client-server model.
            P2P is now already taught in colleges.

            BTW: I'm pretty sure we would never used DAPs (so called MP3 players) if it weren't for piracy.
            IPTV is another idea that has roots in piracy.
      • goffy59, on 10/31/2007, -9/+5ignorant.
      • jtmeyer, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6and you know this... how?
    • SillyDigger, on 11/03/2007, -4/+33Anyone remember exeem?
  • drathian, on 11/04/2007, -7/+399If the people from the pirate bay are working on it, you know it's going to be the future of bit torrent. I've got high hopes for this. Long live the pirate bay!
    • badenglishihave, on 10/31/2007, -3/+27I hesitate to make any sort of predictions about the future ( http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Top_87_Bad_Predic ... ). I too have high hopes, but let's not count our chickens before they're hatched.
      • Scynet, on 10/31/2007, -7/+9Huh, what? Are you trying to say that the fetus isn't a chicken until it's hatched? I could see the pro-life folks frying your ass right about now :P
        • yodaj007, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Well, presumably some eggs don't hatch and die. I'm sure it happens once or twice every thousand eggs.
        • HentaiJeff, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1not if I fry the eggs first
    • RetroRufio, on 10/31/2007, -5/+51So, the future of BitTorrent, is a future without BitTorrent?
      • darkNiGHTS, on 10/31/2007, -0/+61Yes.
      • Audacitor, on 10/31/2007, -9/+3I hope the name of this protocol commemorates bittorrent in some way. After all, BT has been our faithful friend throughout the p2p era thus far.
        • Dweller99, on 10/31/2007, -0/+24P2P goes back quite a bit farther than Bit Torrent does. Napster, Hotline, others I am likely forgetting all spawned the P2P era. Bit Torrent was a relative late-comer.
      • andylwl, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0Hmm not really. Is the future of filesharing without BitTorrent. There will be no more future for BitTorrent if "this future" kicks in.
    • Elranzer, on 11/01/2007, -19/+10The Pirate Bay actually *develop* something? All I've seen so far is TPB mocking up sites that generate revenue to themselves anytime a beloved P2P site shuts down (Suprnova, OiNK, etc), while their own malfunctioning site search brings up the Wal-Mart of torrents... slow, cheap crap (128kbps music, software that's not in English, good stuff with no seeds) all at the slowest seeding speed possible. And there's also that whole child porn hosting thing going on with them.

      Long live TPB? I think not.
      • deviantsteve, on 10/31/2007, -3/+20The site is from an area where english isn't the only language, what did you expect?
    • DesignEx, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5Anyone else remember Exeem, it was what Suprnova.org started touting before they went down- saying it would be the future of file-sharing... it obviously didn't work out. I see bittorrent being made better, and remaining on top for awhile longer.
      • gyrfalcon, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Bittorent is already being made better, and if by a while longer you're talking about 2 to 3 years... You would be right.
      • genmud, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Yea... the bundled spyware, and people don't like spyware, so it didn't get a very good adoption rate... (that is the main factor, but there are others)
      • LingNoi, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2My thoughts exactly this is just supernova repeating itself.
  • xdeliriumx, on 11/03/2007, -48/+5Just use the same thing and call it something different. Perhaps bit-union.
  • zeromancer, on 11/04/2007, -15/+690I just want to take a moment to express my feelings about TPB. In this time of darkness and evil and corruption, they are a big shiny middle finger, aimed directly at the greedy corporate ***** that are destroying our new ways of life by trying to preserve the old.

    I <3 TPB
    • SniperXPX, on 10/31/2007, -8/+36Amen.
    • glitch47, on 10/31/2007, -53/+28You talk about "darkness and evil and corruption". If the most evil thing in your life is having to pay for music, your life is pretty damn good.
      Many people in the world have to deal with war, genocide, poverty, and starvation. Those are truly evil things.
      Paying 99 cents for a Green Day song is NOT evil.



      • tedhead2k, on 11/01/2007, -11/+32Dig him down all you want, but he's right... I'm a pirate too, but I'm not in denial like the rest of you convincing myself that $10 for a CD is actually too expensive and I somehow have a right to share files and "stick it to the man". Praise TPB, but don't act like they are standing up for any supposed "rights" you think you may have.
        • simpleid, on 10/31/2007, -10/+5your perspective is shifted and blurred out of focus by about 180 degrees, you're thinking within this flawed framework and you can't even tell. get out of your box and think freely.
          • tedhead2k, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10Those are some pretty big accusations, why don't you explain yourself and clarify my perspective instead of just telling me how wrong I am?
          • simpleid, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3price up the cost of the average mp3 collection, maybe 5,000 mp3s. if it's a small amount of change to you. you're perspective is only worse by the fact that you're blinded by your wealth ignorant to the state of middle income families and people who are young and support themselves. not to mention on many fundamental basis we are punished by laws defined and created within the context of a society that existed 30 years ago. they don't apply, or suffice, and the cost of production doesn't require every artist to make millions. it's also not easy to track or get a lot of music, we have no choice but to steal some of the art we want to hear. but if given a way to pay we do, scope out radioheads new album and methods of selling this is just a small introduction in to the misguided perceptions being expressed.
          • Monkeywithacold, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3It's not like you are required to listen to music. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
            I pirate too, but getting mad at the government for preventing piracy isn't the way to go.
            Just shut up and put your headphones on while you still can.
          • metalwolf, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2While I agree with you about not buying music you cant afford. If all we ever did is lay down and take it we would still be under European control.
          • gyrfalcon, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Information should be FREE....
        • Audacitor, on 10/31/2007, -7/+3I have no problems paying a dollar for a song. In fact, I think a dollar per song is a good price. What's evil is that the majority of that dollar goes to the record labels, who are basically unnecessary. I mean for frack's sake, this is the Internet age. Distribution of files is really cheap, and could be almost unimaginably cheap if everyone would adopt BT.

          "Drop the pimp!" - Reg, The Drill Down
          • tedhead2k, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5Record labels aren't unnecessary, they provide artists with a lot of exposure and distribution power. Yeah, if you are an artist who just wants to take your music straight to the internet and try to make as much money as possible per album/song, labels aren't necessary, but you will have nowhere near as large a fanbase or number of sales without the help of a label.

            Go out and find one of the thousands of bands desperately seeking a label to sign them and ask them why they would want to have a label.
      • hexydes, on 10/30/2007, -0/+13I don't think those things are mutually exclusive of each other. There are certainly different degrees involved, but the way the media industry has completely overtaken in the US still seems, at least under different lights, a touch on the evil side.
      • Cougaboy, on 10/31/2007, -3/+11Zeromancer never said that corporate ***** were the most evil thing in his life, just that they were an evil thing. Do you think that the people who have to deal with war, genocide, poverty, and starvation wouldn't cheer if they had to deal with one less? They would still have issues, but who is going to complain if someone is helping to shrink that list?
      • typicalusername, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3I download ***** all the time too. However, I agree they aren't evil for trying to make a buck. Everyone wanna get' paid' in life, ya know? They are evil, if they bash on the technology elite who know what the hell they're doing. Why are we worrying about it? Our niche' is never going to have this problem, so why worry about it. We compose like 10% to 20% of the internet, so piracy will always be around.
        • jtmeyer, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2you know... single mothers and all.
        • jtmeyer, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1naw they're evil cuz they attack their customers....
      • chillmandan, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3While paying 99 cents isn't the worst thing in the word, paying any amount of money for a Green Day song is evil, i mean green day sucks.
      • SoulRebel23, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2http://www.cstrecords.com/cst_images/cst024addart1 ...
        When you pay for music, you are financing the people who create and perpetuate war, starvation, poverty, and genocide.
        • cliffski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2yes im sure that's correct. all musicians are child abusing nazis.
          idiot.
    • EndersGame, on 10/31/2007, -6/+22I'd hit it.
    • fkr3, on 11/03/2007, -36/+17Your new way of life is illegal. Any new way of life you create for yourself that involves breaking the law is going to involve consequences for breaking the law.

      The old way of life, where you pay for stuff you want, is going to be around in some fashion for as long as humans are, so you might as well get used to it.
      • lolhax, on 10/31/2007, -20/+4People don't like the truth. And they don't understand the basic concepts of the IP protocol or networking in general. Let them dream :)
      • actorboy, on 10/31/2007, -10/+12You're absolutely right. As long as it takes money to raise food, people are going to have to earn money to buy food -- and the only way to earn money is to sell good and services. This "everything has to be free" mentality is idiotic in that it ignores the fact that humans have basic needs that have to be met by things that cannot be produced for free.
        • terath, on 10/31/2007, -3/+31This is true, but you missed a couple points. First, being a law doesn't make it right. Usually a law needs to be broken on a mass scale for it to change. Second, yes, we need to pay for things. But the 'old' way was NOT for huge corporations to make billions from an artificially created environment.

          In the 'old' way, there was physical resources that required much energy and time to produce or duplicate. The general trend of things, in the 'old' way, was for costs to come down as the price of duplication and production dropped. For example, the printing press reduced the cost of books so that everyone could buy them. Improvements in manufacturing allowed more people to afford cars.

          However, at some point in the recent past, this trend stopped. While duplication costs dropped to an all time low for things like music and software, prices remain the same. The claim being that this is the price of 'production'. The problem comes when the producers are earing only a small share of the income. Where is the rest going? Into the coffers of the hugely rich who control the industry.

          This is not the old way. This is a new way. And it's at odds with the new way that consumers want. Consumers want to see most of the money they spend going to the producers. And they want the price reductions that they never received from the cost of reproduction dropping.

          As long as this divide between producers, consumers, and the rich monopolies remains, you'll see widespread protests against it. That includes piracy. You might as well get used to it.
        • nakani, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5Nobody is saying that everything has to cost nothing. We'd just rather pay the artists directly for distributing their music to us in a convenient fashion (+ vinyl) and then visit them at shows, rather than paying some ***** middleman label/publisher/retailer. Musicians will still make money, they just won't be multi-millionaires. Nothing is stopping them from being entrepreneurial with their profits as well, so I don't exactly feel sorry for them.
        • vincekiessling, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2the bartering system is the best anyway, simply exchange goods and services for goods and services, cut out the middle man (money)
        • jtmeyer, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3NOBODY IS SAYING THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE FREE. what the ***** is wrong with you???
      • terath, on 10/31/2007, -5/+5This is true, but you missed a couple points. First, being a law doesn't make it right. Usually a law needs to be broken on a mass scale for it to change. Second, yes, we need to pay for things. But the 'old' way was NOT for huge corporations to make billions from an artificially created environment.

        In the 'old' way, there was physical resources that required much energy and time to produce or duplicate. The general trend of things, in the 'old' way, was for costs to come down as the price of duplication and production dropped. For example, the printing press reduced the cost of books so that everyone could buy them. Improvements in manufacturing allowed more people to afford cars.

        However, at some point in the recent past, this trend stopped. While duplication costs dropped to an all time low for things like music and software, prices remain the same. The claim being that this is the price of 'production'. The problem comes when the producers are earing only a small share of the income. Where is the rest going? Into the coffers of the hugely rich who control the industry.

        This is not the old way. This is a new way. And it's at odds with the new way that consumers want. Consumers want to see most of the money they spend going to the producers. And they want the price reductions that they never received from the cost of reproduction dropping.

        As long as this divide between producers, consumers, and the rich monopolies remains, you'll see widespread protests against it. That includes piracy. You might as well get used to it.
      • nakani, on 10/31/2007, -2/+7You failed to account for the new way of life that involves breaking the law, where the consequence is no longer having that law.
      • jtmeyer, on 10/31/2007, -4/+3when the hell is your ignorant ass going to stop trolling?
        • HentaiJeff, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Dugg purely for the love of irony
      • takeda, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Illegal? That's why law should be changed.
        If majority of people are breaking the law (I personaly don't know any young adult who never downloaded anything) that is a sign that the law should be changed.
        The government should do what people want, not the different way around.

        Change would be already possible, if:
        - young people would standup and start ***** vote
        - eliminate lobbyists (they never represent an average citizen)
        • cliffski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1the majority of people dont want to pay tax. shall we all stop paying? yay for us! until you need the police, the fire service or roads, then suddenly you realise that you have to pay people to produce stuff. All pirates are doing is leeching off the majority of us who are honest.
    • jmkiii, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4BOOO dinosaurs!
    • shampoovta, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9Reminds me of an old black light poster my friend had back in the 80's.
      It was of a mouse who stood defiantly and held up a big middle finger to an eagle who was swooping down to snatch him up.

      I loved that poster.
      • actionscripted, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1No one on Digg is going to know about the 80's.
        • hurben, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding? ..I know all about the 80's
    • cliffdogg, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't it be "destroying the old way of life by preserving the new"?

      Amen to your point nonetheless.
      • monkeyvoodoo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1No, the corporations are unable to change, and thus are trying to preserve their old ways.
    • sloppychris, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2It's funny because I work for a two person company and our music is still stolen online.
      • cliffski, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2there's nothing funny about that. the idiots who steal your music kid themselves that they are 'sticking it to the man' when they take your hard work for free.
      • int19h, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You have several million users connected to a network that is perfect for sharing files and expect them not to?
        Copyrighted music has only worked in a tiny window of history, from about 1950 to 2000, get over it.
    • ddrfreak007, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1YARrrrrrrrrggggg *in my best pirate voice* ***** you! You greedy corporate *****!
      Dontcha hate it when the RIAA and MPAA tries to F you in the A!
      GOOoo TPB! =)
  • amphet, on 11/04/2007, -5/+402TPB is becoming the underground Google
    • geminitojanus, on 10/31/2007, -13/+6What exactly is underground about The Pirate Bay?
      • simpleid, on 10/31/2007, -7/+1if every digg member that exists knew about the pirate bay, we're still only like 0.02% of the US that's aware of any of this.
      • potterboy, on 10/31/2007, -3/+9Maybe the fact that they are dedicated to sharing copyrighted material.
        • geminitojanus, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5So being one of the largest BitTorrent search engines on the planet, having several mentions on mainstream news sites not to mention being a top hit for practically anything media related you dump into Google, makes them an "underground" phenomenon.

          Good to know.
          • etruscan, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1I think by underground he means they peddle a whole lot of "black-market" content.
    • quaunaut, on 10/30/2007, -9/+3This suddenly brought brilliance to mind. What if...
      Google bought The Pirate Bay and officially started sponsoring copyrights? Turn Youtube into copyrighted material land? Their stock prices alone could ensure that no politician would aim to bring them down.
      • InferiorWang, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5And then all kinds of POed US-based corporations would launch lawsuits and Google and bring the stock prices crashing back down to earth.
    • etruscan, on 10/31/2007, -0/+17Except their search algorithm leaves something to be desired. Hopefully they'll fix that before deciding that the world needs BitTorrent 2.0.
  • nouns, on 11/04/2007, -3/+218Do what you want, 'cause a pirate is free.....
  • meshman, on 11/03/2007, -57/+7It already exists. It's called Usenet.
    • krabat, on 11/03/2007, -28/+7Be prepared to get dugg down by people who think it is a secret.
      • natedouglas, on 11/03/2007, -5/+42As well as by people who remain unimpressed.
      • simpleid, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1you must be the kind of person who has never used any of the technologies you read about, you only know of things by their acronym and the way others describe them. only someone as out of touch as you makes comments like that. and by "you" i'm talking to anyone this general profile fits to.
    • TypeEE, on 11/03/2007, -1/+27That's not p2p, and the content is gone when it expires.
      • DiggCommando, on 11/03/2007, -8/+2That the content is gone when it expires is the largest drawback.
      • meshman, on 11/03/2007, -4/+11Torrents stay alive forever? I don't think so. Do you get a solid 10mb/s from bittorrent? I doubt it.
        • kirashira, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Some newsgroup servers keep their content on 60 days plus, honestly thats all the time you need.
    • azprofessional, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5Well 1st rule's out the window
    • Corrosionx, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5How many people can actually take advantage of Usenet free of charge?

      Usenet is however the biggest bang for your buck if you want to pay for pirated content.
      • indicas, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Usenet is ridiculously cheap, and faster than BT normally since pricks don't seed.

        My cat told me this though, so take it with a grain of salt ;)
  • bightchee, on 11/03/2007, -6/+208What's this about "bit torrent" I hear? I am still leeching anonymously off FTPs.
    • TypeEE, on 11/03/2007, -2/+37You might be 1 out of 100
      • illt, on 10/31/2007, -9/+31 out of 100 knowledgable warez downloaders
        • gyrfalcon, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Doubtful else he would be using SCP...
    • thebaconmonster, on 10/31/2007, -9/+1wikipedia knows everything.....
    • shootsfired, on 10/31/2007, -2/+14u oldschool
      • takeda, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I wish I had access to one of those ftps.
        I had access to one for a short while. It's quite amazing how the whole scene works.
    • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/31/2007, -11/+3Get with the program you tool.
    • rootofunity, on 10/31/2007, -1/+12Thats mad old school back in the days of fservers in mIRC
      • deviantsteve, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11They're still around just extra crunchy
    • sark666, on 11/03/2007, -0/+33You're taking up my slot!!!
    • Skooma714, on 11/02/2007, -0/+54Bittorrent? I'm still copying programs from my friend on 5.25 floppies.
    • askegg, on 10/31/2007, -8/+3What makes you think FTP is anonymous?
      • takeda, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Wrong.

        Warez FTPs are all about identification (not just login and pass), to let in only people the admin trusts.
        That's why is so hard to get access to a real Warez FTP.
    • thebrawl, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5What's this about "silicon"? I'm still chiseling shapes of things into stones.
    • hurben, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I just got todays ftplist off mIRC, I scoured the random mazes of directories on each ftp, one-by-one.
      Ooh!.. a folder with some incomplete movies!... some medical software!.. then I tagged a few folders.. and sent the corrected list to /me.

      p.s. Why the ***** would I want to check my spelling Digg!??
  • quomen, on 11/03/2007, -34/+3The future was in the past, and it was called napster.
    I miss it dearly ='[
    • azprofessional, on 11/03/2007, -1/+18Did cryogenic freezing hurt?
  • dillibob, on 11/03/2007, -3/+28if anyone is going to do it, pirate bay will be the ones
    • TypeEE, on 10/31/2007, -2/+11I remember supernova wrote something that sound like the future but it turns out to be something like napster.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3I wonder why they thought anyone would pay for it when the users were actually trying to get things for free.

        Free = win
        • orangysb, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1well because not everybody is a pirate?
    • RoshanK, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1yea it was called exeem. it was a piece of *****.
  • sporg, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10Every sheet to the wind !!
  • cnot3, on 11/03/2007, -5/+68did they buy their own pirate island yet?
    • raftytaffy, on 10/31/2007, -6/+5No
    • mastertop, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2And they probably got a whole load of money from donations... (to buy the island)
      • cliffski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1indeed. which they stuffed in a swiss bank account whilst laughing at the retards who donated,. the site makes 9 million a month from adverts, like they need your donations...
    • shinynew, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3it seems like alot of the bigger projects they talk about are just pipedreams. Publishing stuff about their new p2p system right now is WAY too early to be taken seriously.
      • takeda, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, I looked at their wiki page, there's pretty much nothing.
        I guess TPB is best at advertising theirself.
        I hope that something comes out of it, though...
    • vaughnallan, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1buying an island would defeat the purpose of being a pirate in the first place!
  • jmeeter, on 10/31/2007, -20/+4Is it possible for one post from TorrentFreak to *not* make it to the front page? Sheesh...
  • nishay, on 10/31/2007, -12/+1did xdeliriumx even read the article?
  • sagat, on 11/03/2007, -2/+76Oh god please don't be another stinking eXeem.
  • aqzman, on 10/31/2007, -2/+15Pretty much everything that the (great) guys at Pirate Bay touch is perfect. I can't wait to see what the pump out this time, I hope it eliminates the current problems with BT and becomes the new gold standard.

    It's also great, and funny, to see some of the URLs that people are giving to them. Just because they know something great and/or funny will be done with it.
    • davidlow, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7Sorry, I only know TPB as a torrent website. What else have they touched that you 're referring to?
      • tizz66, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Well there was that time when they asked for donations to buy Sealand when there was absolutely zero chance it was ever going to happen. That was the 'perfect' scam I suppose?
      • etruscan, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2...his noodly appendage.
    • Elranzer, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6You can't possible be referring to their horrible search engine or ghastly speeds as "perfect" I hope.
    • evi1, on 11/06/2007, -1/+9To be honest the pirate bay is a horrible tracker with horrible search and horrible speeds. It doesn't compare to some of the better private trackers however they are doing good tings for the community as a whole.
  • barnseyboy12, on 10/31/2007, -13/+2I wonder if comment 27 below the article is really aXXo's or if its some kid pretending to be the famous pirate.
    • sevenalive, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8"aXXo is a fraud. He takes scene releases and publishes it under his own name" i hear stuff like that all the time from irc channels. i say, who cares, its all stolen anyway, does it matter who stole it, axxo provides no bs, only avi vids at a good enough quality. For that i say, well done.
      • gavin422, on 10/31/2007, -2/+7This is a pointless conversation because it's off-topic, but the workings of the "scene" are very intricate. They have a hierarchy of rippers, couriers, crackers, contacts, etc. Their releases are never meant to spread to P2P sites because, in their view, if you don't contribute something to the scene, you don't deserve the benefits of scene releases. I can understand how they might be a little pissed off if some kid attached his own name to their work and posted it on TPB.
      • sizza, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Contrary to popular belief, most groups don't care if their releases hit the general public, in fact many pride themselves on their ability to spread a release. If they cared so much they'd be releasing everything as internal on private sites, and have a lot more control over who gets there hands on it.

        Having said that, axxo may be just taking scene releases and re-encoding them, but who gives a *****? If he can combined whats available and make something better out of it for the public, who cares? He's not preing his stuff anyway so who cares what scene rules say.
  • SPThom, on 11/03/2007, -2/+46They need a name... How about FileParrot or something? :P
  • RobLiefeld, on 11/03/2007, -36/+4I count the days till companies like these get shut down. Whether The Pirate Bay intentionally or unintentionally promotes stealing of intellectual properties such as comics, artwork, etc... it's NOT a good thing for artists who make a living off of sales of their works.
    • BaronKarza, on 11/03/2007, -1/+16Your an idiot if you think bit torrent scans of comics are hurting the industry. As a comic lover I would never bother with a scan if I can buy the real thing, it just isn't the same. If sales of your comic works are going down, it's because you are a talentless hack whose only method of selling comics back in the 90's was via fad and speculation of future value. Now that the comic buying public has outgrown that faze and can see all those "Liefield drawn IMAGE books" in the quarter bin they aren't as willing to part with their hard earned money. In any case, Bit Torrent, TPB, and file sharing in general have nothing to do with a sales slump in ANY industry. Smart business people will learn to grow with the times, and use technologies like BT to PROMOTE their work instead of whining "why can't everything stay the same!?!?!?"
      • brandon215, on 11/03/2007, -4/+3Your an idiot. Its stealing point blank. So you find a new way to steal thats not advancing technology. If you found a way to steal food and profit margins at food companies went down. You would be faced with lesser quality food. Thats what you have now. Lesser quality art. Lesser quality music. People are not asking for things to stay the same. They are looking for things to advance. Stealing this way is making quality decline. I don't want to even here that music these days is better because of downloading. Your an idiot. And what the f*ck makes you thing your an such expert at technolgy or that anyone that disagree's with this type of "advancement" is as you as say "old" and "wants things to stay the same". Your a moron. Who the f*ck are you and what is your degree theif? Where do you work and live so I can come steal from your house? You think your so wise but you don't know anything.
        • RobLiefeld, on 11/03/2007, -4/+1Well said!
        • mikinurbook, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Looks like someone stole your apostrophe key...damn pirates.
  • wisam, on 11/03/2007, -3/+21As much as I would be happy to see this new protocol alive and see it outgrow bittorrent, let's not forget suprnova's exeem project which proved to be a total failure. Running the most popular bittorrent website doesn't mean you're successfully create a new protocol.
    • thesauce, on 10/31/2007, -2/+17ThePirateBay is epic compared to suprnova.
      • shinynew, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2ThePirateBay is the poster child of bittorrent, not the brainiac, not the most popular kid, not the coolest kid, not the best kid.
    • serpentor, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Thank you, I was about to make a similar comment about eXeem until I noticed yours. I hope they don't repeat the same mistakes..
    • modena, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8Exeem wasn't a suprnova project, they just employed the creator of suprnova as a spokesperson. But your point still stands, this new protocol will have to have enough obvious advantages to get enough people to switch over from bittorrent. Knowing TPB I'm sure privacy is a top concern and a more secure and decentralized system would be enough for me to switch over.
      • shinynew, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1anonymous wouldn't be that hard to do on a decentralized network:

        client A wants to anonymously connect to client B, they generate a random key, create the request packet with the header of a random key, the end IP address, and a specification that it is an anonymous transfer, then they do a random test (say one in three) that it will be sent directly to client B, otherwise it finds a person that is 'close' to them and send it to them. That person client C stores the random key with the IP address it got it from in a short term cache that will be shreaded after it is no longer in use or the connection times out, Then it runs the random check.
        When client B finally gets the packet it sends it back down the chain, now when it gets back to client A if the lag time is to high it will simply start the whole progress over again, otherwise you have a system that no court would convict, client A would just state that it got it from a random client, and the log of such has been deleted and overwritten.

        Login capabilities is somewhat more complex but can also be achieved in a decentralized network.
        If you created a decentralized network that could have a plugin system and a update system that is dictated by popular vote then it would be virtually impossible to shut it down.
        • Matt2k, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Wow. Vincent Cerf and Johnnie Cochran have nothing on you. Your grasp of the legal system and advanced networking topics is astounding.

          I'm reminded of a time when I was a kid and I was hanging out with my buddies late at night. We were up to no good. Throwing rocks at a barn or street signs or something like that. At the time, we made a pact that if police were to show up, that we'd all claim that we didn't know each other, and we all sort of congregated at that point by pure chance. Looking back, that's pretty ***** stupid.
          • shinynew, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1do i detect a hint of sarcasm?
            serously, my system may not be very good but i am pretty sure that a US court with a competent lawyer wouldn't be able to find you guilty of file sharing as long as people don't keep logs and you have a online IP to say that it originated from. lets hear your idea.
    • superkendall, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1The new protocol is said to be backwards compatible with older clients, they just wouldn't get the advantages of newer aspects of the protocol - that would help a lot. Also was eXeem really a protocol, or just a custom client? There is a big difference between publishing a protocol which any Torrent application can support and asking everyone to switch to a new client.
  • daxsymbiont, on 11/03/2007, -4/+45"We at TorrentFreak are of course a bit concerned about these new developments since we owe our name to BitTorrent,"

    the world is trembling with anticipation for this impending disaster.
  • billypw, on 11/03/2007, -4/+106Ohh what's that sound that I hear? Anyone else hear it? Sounded like an RIAA exec dropping on the floor because of a heart attack.
    • Rotzooi, on 10/31/2007, -1/+20/dances around, pries out an eyeball and pisses in the socket
      • tchynerd, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3no *****?
      • wiifm69, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5lets go into the jungle and get aids and then piss in his eye socket
        • joshuabowers, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1But we've got to have AIDS before we pee in his eyesocket!
        • CSharpSauce, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Ahh still funny, even when you're not a cute wooland creature
      • RoshanK, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1you, my friend, have a wild imagination.
    • IRn101, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Kira is a pirate.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 11/05/2007, -11/+12Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me!
  • nfollmer, on 10/31/2007, -7/+2Shhhhhhhhh.........."The Man" is listening!
    • ronintetsuro, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1***** the man. His time is over.
  • uziko, on 10/31/2007, -23/+3wow i can tell nobody here has heard of rapidshare.com
    • uziko, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1and you all proved me right by digging me down
  • hollyminkowski, on 11/03/2007, -0/+77What is really needed in a new p2p system is encryption...or at least
    a good dash of plausible deniability.
    • superkendall, on 11/03/2007, -0/+6Current torrent clients already support encryption. But it doesn't matter if you encrypt torrent traffic if an MPAA rep is at the other end of the line gathering all the bits you are sending them.
    • FreydNot, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1waist

      look it up
  • Tyr7BE, on 11/03/2007, -4/+86Ok, so the guys at PB are pretty damned good at running a search engine, and avoiding the law. But how are they at protocol design? Something like this isn't just something you can waltz into. I would trust your average server admin about as far as I could throw them with the design of a new protocol, especially for something as widespread as what they're hoping for. So do they have actual engineers on board, or is this just a bunch of guys who all got high one night and decided 'we're gonna build a protocol, man!!'.
    • tuxidomasx, on 11/03/2007, -2/+11I think you may be underestimating them...
      • fkr3, on 11/03/2007, -2/+23I think you may be overestimating them. Look past the rhetoric and you'll see there is really a significant difference between running a couple of websites, even coding those websites, verse creating whatever supercedes BitTorrent.
        • qwuinc, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2I agree with parent, and let there be no doubt that what the TPB folks are doing politics-wise is really commendable. Protocol design is a whole different thing, however.
        • tuxidomasx, on 10/31/2007, -4/+3thats a rather bold statement to make without knowing the skillz of TPB admins.

          For all we know, they could be experts in protocol design. I'd tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. They havent given me a reason to think that they dont know what they're doing.
          • etruscan, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3They been a major BT search engine and tracker for years now, and they have yet to sort out the problems with either. I'm not saying they can't do it... but I am a little skeptical.
      • SonnyW, on 10/31/2007, -1/+10I'll believe they can make a future bittorrent if they someday manage to have a search engine on TPB that can actually find anything. It's pretty sad them meta-torrent sites can actually search TPB better than the search on the site itself...
      • dillinger23, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Anakata who is one of the PB admins is also part of the compsec "underground"
        and certainly has serious skills. I'd trust him to write a competent and well-thought implementation
        more than Bram...
    • Xiretsa, on 10/31/2007, -5/+1I don't think you have read the information on the site. It will still build on bittorrent. They just add new stuff to it.
      • Elranzer, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Kinda like how Shareaza "built on" to Gnutella? And by that, I mean proprietary ***** they added that nobody uses.
    • FredSpeaking, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The gist I got was that the new protocol will be something like a BT fork, or at least not vastly different, simply created to dodge the proprietary software bullet.
  • cotaskmemalloc, on 11/03/2007, -35/+4Why don't all of you bastards stop breaking the goddamn law? I laugh my ass off every time one of you gets sued, and I really hope that more lawsuits are brought against pirates.
  • floatingpoints, on 11/03/2007, -2/+31Unless it's anonymous or somehow changes the way ***** is distributed, it won't fix *****.

    What we need is a service that keeps everyone anonymous, where you aren't positive that the computer sending you the file you requested is even one that's hosting it. (Kinda like tor.. but improved)
    • over90000, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2You should check the wiki for the project. They have all the info about what they want to implement.
    • chedabob, on 11/03/2007, -2/+10It exists already. Freenet. It's slow as snot, and full of child porn, hence why nobody except paedophiles use it.
      • floatingpoints, on 11/03/2007, -0/+6Yeah, but freenet is an entirely different beast. It's meant to be an "internet within an internet" type of deal.

        Its purpose isn't to share files.

        I think what Tor is built upon can be extended exponentially if you make it a strict filesharing type of service. Not to mention, the more people use it, the faster Tor gets. But again, Tor wasn't designed specifically for heavy file transfers.

        The idea is still the same, however. The source requests something through a middleman, which cannot tell if the person requesting is the originator. Likewise, when receiving data (encrypted to the middleman), they can't tell who requested it or where it came from (coulda been the node before it, or one before THAT).

        A mechanism like that is flawless because you can't prove *****, therefore the RIAA can't pinpoint specific users. Also, the technology DOES have legitimate purposes, so they can't exactly make the technology itself illegal.
        • tizz66, on 10/31/2007, -4/+1Listen, I don't care what people want to download. I'm not a rights owner. But why do downloaders insist that the technology has a legitimate use, and yet do everything they can to hide their tracks? For legitimate uses (e.g. WoW patches, linux distros), BT is fine 99% of the time. The reason this new protocol is being talked about and the reason it's TPB doing it is because it makes it easier for people to download copyrighted stuff. Let's just stop pretending it's all fine and legitimate stuff, because we all know it's actually *****.
          • floatingpoints, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6It's the principle of the issue.

            You can apply that same logic to anything. Guns, porn, alcohol, weed. Legitimate uses for all. Sure, tons of people can find the slightest thing wrong with any of those.

            The thing is, we're in a free country, so we can use these things for any reason or no reason at all.

            The point here is that if these organizations are going to become corrupt greedy ***** going after everyone, then we can one up them because we can.

            I personally don't care what's transmitted through it. I just would enjoy the fact that it IS there. Because after all - you can leak news, classified docs, and much much more without exposing who you really are.

            Perhaps someone is in an organization that is using illegal methods to obtain info, or do other things. Then anyone can remain anonymous and submit evidence exposing said people. That's a legit use you'd get out of this.

            It goes beyond piracy and into freedom of speech and information. Can you pirate with it? Sure.

            But I have my right to privacy, as do you and everyone else.
        • maz2331, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Ask a Chinese dissident some time... oh wait. That's hard to do after the AK-47 round their government put through the back of his skull.
    • stoanhart, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Hmmm. The tor idea is not bad. The problem we have with tor is that the small number of endpoints reduces the overall bandwidth capacity.

      However, consider the following system:

      The tracker knows all participants in all “torrents” it is hosting. If a tracker is hosting multiple torrents, then there will be clients sharing different files. Lets say two files are being shared: A and B; the users for each are a1, a2, ..., an and b1, b2, ..., bm respectively.

      If user a1 requests a chunk of file A, the tracker then finds a user ai that has that chunk. The tracker then selects a set of users from any other swarm it is hosting other than the A swarm. Finally, tracker then creates an “onion” (see Onion Routing – tor is The Onion Router – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing). The chunk of file A is then passed from the user ai who has it to a user of another swarm. This can continue as many times as necessary. When user a1 finally receives his chunk, it comes from a computer that is not even serving that file!

      This system must be open source; here is why: user a2 is a member of the RIAA and requests a chunk of file A. If the user bi that was the “end point” in passing a chunk of file A to user a2, and that user bi is sent a scary letter by the RIAA and summoned to court, the user can rightfully claim that he/she did not in fact ever make file A available for distribution; they are merely a participant in a random onion routing network. By having the system open source, it can be verified that the selection of the intermediate nodes is designed specifically to make sure that user is not sharing that file.

      Pros:
      -Tracker controls manages most chunk transfers (selects the nodes). It can:
      a) Distribute the load evenly across all possible nodes
      b) Determine at will how many hops we go through – more hops = more secure, but slower
      c) Relates to Cons:d – The more swarms there are, and the bigger they are, the more bandwidth is available. Also, tracker can exclude users who are not passing on onions – leaching disabled! Ratios can be enforced.

      Cons:
      -A central server is required. This implies:
      a) You must trust the server not to log data (but trust is not really a problem with TPB)
      b) Massive processing costs when coordinating most chunk transfers (not every transfer needs to be managed – usually an onion is reused for several minutes before a new one is generated)
      c) Bandwidth (not too bad – just passing onions, not torrent data)
      d) The tracker must be hosting multiple swarms – the more the better (many trackers already do this)

      This is just a quick writeup of the idea I got from the parent comment. Obviously, this could be improved in many, many ways. With a bit of tinkering, it could maybe be made at least partially decentralized.

      Pascal
    • stoanhart, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Oh, one more point I forgot.

      Say the RIAA then says to user bi "You still gave us a chunk, and you were participating in a P2P network". Well, chances are this would not hold in a court; being part of a p2p network does not imply illegality, since there are legal uses too. If the tracker is hosting even a single linux distro or CC file, they can't prove the user had illegal intent. And the user didn't share a copyrighted file, just a small segment of bits – a chunk.

      If through some fluke the same endpoint was used to pass every single chunk of a copyrighted file to the RIAA, they may have a case. However, the tracker can ensure that doesn't happen, since it coordinates chunk transfers.

      With just a chunk, the RIAA can prove nothing. A chunk is just a binary string. Without context, it could mean a million different things.

      Pascal
      • lienomi, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Great analysis!
        • CSharpSauce, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1And I'm sure the jurors will completely understand that.
  • shadowblade989, on 11/03/2007, -14/+2Everyone who dugg this is going to get *****' sued! (including me)
  • heymeester, on 11/03/2007, -4/+21...and I see a future without The Pirate Bay. All the content providers need to do is give consumers a way of rapidly downloading high quality DRM free content for a reasonable price.
    • khellendros1984, on 11/03/2007, -0/+10The only DRM I would find acceptable would be the impossible kind. It would allow me to do the things I am permitted to do under law (not license agreement), without inconveniencing me, and while still protecting the rights of the media company (prevent me giving a copy to someone else, but allow me to make as many copies for myself as desired). I believe this to be a practical impossibility, so I'll simplify the choice. If it supports DRM, it is unacceptable to me.
    • gtapro92, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8except for the fact that free beats any price
    • tizz66, on 11/03/2007, -3/+10Stop pretending that a good price will stop you pirating. iTunes Plus and the other drm-free stores offer just what you're asking for, yet people will pirate it still. Every time your demands get met (which they likely will even if it takes a while), you'll simply have another list of more demands so you can continue justifying downloading.
  • merreborn, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9If you look at the wiki describing the project linked in the article, it's pretty clear they're only replacing the .torrent file format, *not* the bittorrent network protocol.
  • jonesin, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3This is brilliant. Check out the metadata tag specifications. Won't that make things way more indexable?
  • qwuinc, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3Like some calm commenters above, I'm quite worried about this as well. TPB is doing nice things with politics and their ideals, but this seems a bit far-fetched. Protocol design is a whole different thing, and what their motive for doing it seems to be somewhat weird - you don't fix fakes and other problems at protocol level, at least not completely.

    Plus, to really contest bittorrent it would be best to start by getting in touch with other bittorrent world folks (eg. azureus) who have already successfully extended the protocol/torrent files. Extending the current protocol is a much easier feat than replacing it altogether.
    • stoanhart, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1It says it will be backwards compatible.
  • h0m3styl3, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8I can only hope this is called "the pirate's code" or something awesome. The names for the protocol and the clients they could come up with for this protocol bring about lots of glorious names and ideas. Lots of plank walking and ship terms of course.
  • juicebag, on 11/01/2007, -8/+2I just want it to be able to use my connections speed to its full extent without spending hours configuring things.
  • anenokoji, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Don't get your hopes up too much. Remember... suprnova did the same thing. But they failed. And suprnova was big. Not pirate bay big. But, you know the deal.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I think TPB has a huge spotlight where suprnova didn't.

      TPB has pretty much waged all out war with the industry assholes - so I'm sure they've been offered amazing help from random contributors with excellent minds.

      I know if I had more time to contribute, I'd definitely pitch in as much as I could.
  • groonk, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3oh! i can't wait for this!
  • abxy, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1What every happened to that island slash country they were supposed to be buying and asking monetary donations for?
    • anenokoji, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2they said they would never sell to pirate bay
  • richbradshaw, on 10/31/2007, -4/+31Why are pirates called pirates?

    Because they ARRRRR!
    • brandon215, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Why are Pirate's not comedians?

      Becuase that joke.... DARRRR SHE BLOWS.
    • mitchlourens, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4how much does a pirate charge for an ear piercing?

      AR BUCCANEER!
    • Doublee3, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0What's a Pirate's favorite element?

      ARRRgon
      • bryant, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1What's gold, and sounds like a pirate?
        ...
        Pyrite!
        ...
        ...
        Well pfft. The guys in the obligatory cove thought it was funny.
  • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/31/2007, -5/+1Replace oink first. Please.
    • Elranzer, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1With 128kbps CBR albums, that you can fine EVERYWHERE ELSE first, served at slow speeds? CHECK!!
    • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Oink was more than just being able to get music, you fool.
  • SomaSynth, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1I ♥ Kademlia.

    Fine, laugh at me, then try it.
  • corvu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2'The Pirates Protocol'? ARRRRRR!!
    This is, for sure, going to be TPB's Style: clever, sharp, funny. Long Live TPB!
  • ortucis, on 10/31/2007, -0/+13Even though I only use BitTorrent for downloading Linux over and over every day (yes, I download, delete and download it again, got a problem with that?) I have to digg this news up for the hilarious comments.
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3lemme guess
    osp
    openseas protocol
  • redneo, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1love to see these the priates stick a cannon up the riaa ass and fire
  • KungFuJesus, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I hope that it's more distributed than the current system
  • shampoovta, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1It used to be that record companies and movie companies were only humorously evil. In the 70's you knew they were evil but it was funny with there bell bottom suits and hip lingo. Today I hate them, like I hate anything that threatens my family. They must be destroyed. So go Pirate Bay kill the evil but just remember to slay a monster you must become one. I will deal with the world one monster at a time.
  • Nadan10, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3connecting to comment...
    need more sources
  • OptimismPrime, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2It's 1:32 AM here....so lets hope what i write makes any sense in english at all.

    I seem to remember that there was some kind of Filesharing program/protocol (or plans for one) that aproached the user annonymity/liability from a very interesting angle....

    The Networksturcture was some type of mesh...i think. Depending on your connection speed and logical proximity to nodes that had content available you wanted, or that was in high demand in "your neighborhood", content was cached on your computer, but the cache was an encrypted container.....
    so you esentialy hosted bits & pieces of...god knows what that was in high demand by nodes "around you" in addition to stuff you had openly in your sharefolder.
    So, since noone knew exactly what they shared, and the system made no difference between what was shared from your actual sharefolder or the content cache, the only thing someone could say about individual nodes for certain was that they were downloading and uploading content, but neither if the user of any given node was knowingly downloading any given file specificaly to aquire said file, or if he was knowingly sharing any given file specificaly to spread that file.
    The only thing that could be proven was that a node received and sent data from and to the network.

    So..no clue if i remember this correctly, if it was a concept for a Filesharing network i read about somewhere or if it was actualy implemented and running....maybe i'm being completly delusional here because of the advanced hour.

    If someone does however recognise anything i wrote down here....let me know where the heck i got this info from or what it was(is) called.


    So the user of the node actualy running the program could not determine wich content his machine cached, but it ensured that content in demand was available from many sources.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.