Author Topic: New Client (Read 120806 times)

Pri · « **Reply #280 on:** June 25, 2015, 06:40:31 am »

We don't have anything we want to announce right now, soon though.

Sharky · « **Reply #281 on:** July 06, 2015, 08:13:39 pm »

GhostShip · « **Reply #282 on:** July 06, 2015, 08:48:11 pm »

Nice to see you paying a visit Sharky

I was recently looking for new ideas to add to the primary protocols to prevent network annoyances but so far the quantity of useful input is in the low to near non-existent level , anything you think might be of help , basically we are looking for an asymmetrical message validation system to put in place of the current "publicised" system, any ideas ?

Sharky · « **Reply #283 on:** July 06, 2015, 10:38:11 pm »

I really like the DHT idea Pri mentioned, although I look at how Tixati has implemented it, and as far as my user experience with it goes, it wasn't that great.

Maybe there's some other BT clients that have a better implementation, If so, I'd really like to try them.

I'm sure there's other more viable solutions, but off of the top of my head, I can't really think of any, since I'm so out of the loop I don't even know the scope of the attacks anymore, aside from fake Primary clients.

I know in the past few years I've been on and off with my availability to help you guys, but in any case, if you guys need some help here and there with the client, I'll make my Skype available upon request.

GhostShip · « **Reply #284 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:03:39 pm »

Help is always wanted

I have a bag of bugs to fix in the client but thats not really been the block in the road so to speak, we need to re-create the mx wheel and replace the broken areas within the primary protocol, anything else is going to be build upon this non-trivial foundation and thus now is the best time to get this fixed and decided upon as to delay further means we are going to be building on both sand and a lower userbase for each month we hold out doing so.

We simply need a new security architecture to replace the old one and to add some further cryptographic bells and whistles to prevent abuse from spreading across the whole network should one part of the security model fail.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #285 on:** August 13, 2015, 09:12:39 pm »

Wanders back in from the bush...

Sniffs around at some of the last 3 months mess, hmm, plenty of droppings, not much useful except that last page...

Sits and watches

GhostShip · « **Reply #286 on:** August 13, 2015, 11:31:28 pm »

LOL

The gnomes are still at work mate, it is clear however that theres not going to be any community wide agreement on network protocol improvements, this is a shame but it was necessary to go through the effort to ask for ideas of usage.

Sharky · « **Reply #287 on:** August 29, 2015, 04:13:55 am »

LiveForeverNow · « **Reply #288 on:** August 30, 2015, 12:13:33 pm »

jeez at this rate it'll be 2025 and the thing will still be unreleased

GhostShip · « **Reply #289 on:** August 30, 2015, 06:42:48 pm »

Hmm it is most frustrating both for those on the development crew and those waiting for it, as always its simply down to time for coding, the research is already in hand for both WPN and Opennap and whilst its coming along nicely with many improvements over the beta 1 we previously released its not up to the standard required to both prevent adding to our woes on the network and to satisfy all of the naysayers and doom merchants, beta 1 wasn't as good as it should have been that's for sure, but it was proof that we where not telling stories as some folks now silent claimed at the time.

As always theres room on the group for those who know there way around MFC c++ and are up for a challenge, the more hands means the faster time we can get something released, this has always been the case and opportunities and time have been lost because folks didn't want to help out in areas like network and protocol improvement research , planning and function design, publicity teams arranged for when the release is ready and other areas that have taken up the coders valuable time, we must all work together when necessary or we will simply reach the end of the road with a great client and no userbase left.

Rest assured effort goes on each weekend and on most weekedays to bring a further release to the folks, no one is slacking but its really not fair to ask evrything for so long from so few, have faith and be ready when we are.

WhiteLightningX · « **Reply #290 on:** September 01, 2015, 05:27:34 am »

Well, quality is the most important factor here, not really the userbase. They'll be coming back when they find out. Me and a few others I know are always lurking back here every so often, checking in on the place.

And the rest of the "average" consumers will come back when people like us give the green light for them. Which is kinda like a ratio of 1:"a lot."

I've got a gut feeling that while it may take a while, it will be the most robust p2p client of all time. Big statement, I know, but it'll probably be just like when WinMX first came out, FREAKING AWESOME.

with the extra security features.

You know, why not just make it a "any file" sharing client? I think you could do that with the old version, but wasn't it a little complicated? I also think that it should have a completely anonymous/secure mode for the more paranoid, like a TOR/"insert crazy other protocol idea here." Granted, that would create a curtain for bad guys to hide behind too, but with all of the "elite spying" BS (which all us regular intelligent/conspiracy people already knew about) I feel it would help the good guys from evil entities too even if it was slow as "poop".

lol (and help people who like to try things before the buy them because of ****** return policies!)

Hell, while we're at it why not just decentralize the internet at the same time and implement a bitcoin type DNS that only allows the owner of the keys to change the site(and create new keys continuously to nullify the old ones being cracked), which could be distributed across multiple encrypted decentralized machines (like with MaidSafe), and have a rating system to allow for duplicate domain names. That way you can pick which one you want to go to in case of someone pretending to be the other, all of which could be controlled by free access routers, and just adjust the speeds per user or the number of users allowed to be connected. Say goodbye to ISP's and ICANN together! (and that bill!!)

And instead of trying to stop fake duplicates, just allow them and let the users decide on who to connect to with a list perhaps.

we may be creating an alternative timeline for the future here....for us and the internet....
sorry i've clearly been up too long...

gonna go back to shutting up and eating my GMO's even if all of those major historical events were false flags and inside jobs...

WhiteLightningX · « **Reply #291 on:** September 01, 2015, 05:34:49 am »

Sorry, such a long post and I forgot to thank you all for all you do! Sheesh my manners!

Take your time, we've all seen what rushed products look like and we don't want that... *cough* MICROSOFT!!! *cough*

writing this post from a trusty XP btw.

*sings* *Brown Chicken Brown Cow!* *sings*

GhostShip · « **Reply #292 on:** September 01, 2015, 06:09:46 am »

What you have described I believe already exists

I was researching something the other day and was re-reading about perfect dark, winny, share as well as freenet, compared to how they deliver security we are in the stone age

For those are interested in assessing some of the more secure network architectures this page makes a good place to start with

http://anonymous-p2p.org/programs.html

I,ll get back to work now I have hopefully pointed some of you towards testing and researching all of those types of heavier security p2p apps, if anyone has time a report on what network is usable for a larger userbase (many secure networks suck at being usable) as well as what security features make that the case would be good reading for me at least.

WhiteLightningX · « **Reply #293 on:** September 01, 2015, 06:58:51 am »

One of the few I hadn't seen yet was OFFSystem, which looks hilariously nice.

What a funny way to do it..

WhiteLightningX · « **Reply #294 on:** September 01, 2015, 07:09:24 am »

It would appear that OFFSystem's efficiency could be drastically increased if a said block was reused. I mean, if a source file that you were downloading had a reappearing block, and you had already downloaded this reappearing block, wouldn't every one of those bits instantly become "already downloaded?" Even if you had multiple files being downloaded simultaneously? This would further add to anonymity since that said block could be used for your other transfers and GREATLY reduce overhead and global traffic flow since the client would be doing roughly half the work of the transfer internally. UGH.. Nvm, that was at the bottom of the wiki.... LOL posting before I finished reading....*shoots face*

But really how in the hell did I miss OFFSystem? Never even heard of the thing.

Ace · « **Reply #295 on:** September 01, 2015, 11:17:58 am »

mx used to have the dup name block it was in the first verstions
lol spent many anight trying a nick that was not allready taken :>

GhostShip · « **Reply #296 on:** September 01, 2015, 04:59:00 pm »

Opennap supports that with a server message , might it have been a pre decentralisation version your thinking of Ace ?

For the more recent users out there WinMX adds an extra 5 digits on the end of the username to avoid duplicate name collisions.

Ace · « **Reply #297 on:** September 02, 2015, 01:26:08 am »

yea possable was when thay first versions come out when it was just open nap so yea could been pre decentralisation
version , wpn versions as you say " Adds extra 5 digits on the end of the username to avoid duplicate name collisions."

should made bit clearer in what i ment :>

White Stripes · « **Reply #298 on:** September 02, 2015, 05:48:25 am »

Quote

TOR/"insert crazy other protocol idea here."

i2p ... the 'crazy protocol idea' for p2p apps is already here called i2p and actually its not a bad idea...

~~TOAD~~ · « **Reply #299 on:** November 17, 2015, 08:30:20 pm »

So how is this cough "new client" going?

It looks pretty dead to me.