Author Topic: Bit torrent support in the future? (Read 4633 times)

shamil · « **on:** August 15, 2010, 01:24:46 pm »

Just thought of something that would make winmx much more useful and modernized.

It seems to me that built in bittorrent support in future winmx clients would be a definite plus. You'd essentially be able to have winmx open for more than just grabbing files off the wpn and chat.

White Stripes · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2010, 07:18:10 pm »

that idea has already been thrown around.... and i was greatly for it as well.....

but theres one really big problem with it... no protection.... sure the blocklist could be updated to be bittorrent ready but that would be insanely time consuming and would require a new set of tools and still wouldnt be as effective....

tis best to have two clients for that... utorrent (or whatever your fav flavor for your platform is) and winmx running side by side... peerblock (or other platform equivalent) with the winmx-friendly nexus23 blocklist (do not use bluetack lists) to protect bittorrent and the eagle patch auto-grabbed list for winmx itself...

GhostShip · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2010, 11:15:54 pm »

Has anyone been keeping their eye on the Tixati Bit torrent client ?

http://www.tixati.com/

Its being continuously updated still and "Fred" the chap who answers all questions and queries there takes on board all suggestions and feedback for features, normally I wouldnt make such a shameless plug as this post but I,m of the opinion that as this torrent client was given access to the winmx update bar by the official winmx.com owner it must be a decent project and also worthy of support from those of you who use the bit torrent system as well as MX, if its good enough for Kevin then surely it must have something under the hood that will ensure it a decent future, all its lacking at this time is users, if you got time give it a whirl and I am sure you will find some aspects of it a great reminder of its suspected parentage.

White Stripes · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2010, 01:28:06 am »

bittorrent is bittorrent... its not a closed network...

btw, the system requirements for tixati are a little... high... for a torrent client... (1ghz or faster cpu? you do know a 486 can handle torrents right? 256mb ram? um... nothx.. hes either calling those to keep ppl from running it on older systems or the programming is very very sloppy...)

....and i honestly dont think "fred" is kevin.... and if he is... why is he hiding?

shamil · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2010, 08:51:59 am »

I said screw tixati. Too high of system resources. I usually start up a torrent file and forget about it while i do something else like eating up all my ram with a game. And the torrent's still going. Winmx doesn't eat much memory, i can do the same thing with what i described above, except i'd be downloading something through the wpn instead.

Even though i run linux, going to use utorrent through wine.
Bittorrent support in winmx would make winmx a multi protocol client in the end. Maybe this could be a plugin endeavor for future clients?

GhostShip · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2010, 11:03:30 am »

I wouldn't advise anyone to use a WinMx client with a BT plug-in due to its "guaranteed lawsuit factor" method of operation, most users of WinMX know that downloading copyrighted content for their own personal use is legal, uploading such copyrighted material is another matter and fraught with potential legal hurdles, the bit torrent mechanism ensures anyone using it for the transfer of copyrighted material is committing an offence that could see them in court or worse as many of the current bit torrent users are finding, facing extortion threats from unscrupulous third party legal companies after a fast buck, I would be very vocal in opposition against such an idea, mixing gold with lead does not make for a reasonable investment.

I,m not sure why Tixati has such high system requirements but I,m sure it will improve with time as the features side of the build solidify and time can then be spent on optimising the code to eat less resources. As for whether fred is kevin or whether the code base has some reused code fragments who knows but I do know that when Tixati first publicised its existence (via the winmx update bar) I tore the client apart using some clever tools and the specific programming language and GUI layout style where the same as used in WinMX albeit with a newer version of compiler, the layout of the whole Tixati site reflects the same look as the old WinMX site did so either this has some insider help from the old chap or someone is doing a lot of work to make it look like it is, I cant say which is true but we are of course all free to speculate.

shamil · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2010, 01:36:38 pm »

I see what you're getting at. Yeah, bittorrent integrated into winmx would essentially put winmx in a bad limelight.

GhostShip · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2010, 03:01:08 pm »

We have discussed this here before and Bit torrent has some great aspects to it but privacy and security sort of work against the model this network relies on Shamil, the transfer of files is done user to user and thus either one party or the other can potentially be held to account if there is some activity that is infringing a copyright, with bit torrent there can be many "investigators" sitting on the side line watching your activity and then automatically making a claim of infringement regardless of the validity of such a claim, we have seen this in real life where researchers spoofed the address of a printer to a bit torrent swarm and it received an automated "take down notice" despite the fact it did not in fact take part in any activity.

With the UK Govt having adopted a system whereby these take down notices are counted to create some sort of index of infringement you can see that simply getting a notification regardless of its validity is bad news.

shamil · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2010, 10:43:21 pm »

Oh don't worry. I already know how insecure bittorrent can be, and the risk management with what people download through it too. The media cartels just basically visit a tracker and pick an ip at random and send some letters.

Bittorrent can be secure, but i think for that to happen for sure all the time is to rerelease the protocol with two things changed only like forced encryption, don't connect to anybody who doesn't have it, or let anybody who has it not connect to you. And move over to trackerless only. These two changes becoming mandatory would make a world of difference big time. But, no, it's still mainly a tracker world with the option of enabling encryption but to still connect to those on the torrent that are unencrypted (unless encryption is forced for when connecting to all peers, then it makes it sort of pointless). More could be done with trackerless, but it's been relegated to a feature just to get more peers for even better download redundancy and speed (that is not the true purpose for trackerless, and those on the tracker and being on the trackerless torrent at the same time ruins the security model of the trackerless torrent).

Bittorrent could be managed better by the users and provider of the data on the torrent.
Whenever i torrent it just doesn't matter to do a thing if it's a legal file, but illegal, yeah trackerless only with forced encryption for me thx.