I was right! It won’t!

The only interesting feature of UDP I’d care about is that UDP hole punching makes it possible to connect two peers behind routers (often mislabeled as “firewalls”) by help of a common third peer. This requires no relaying. LimeWire does it and it sure helps. It’s one of the Gnutella features that still puts most other P2P protocols to shame because those support at best inefficient relaying.

For this reason alone, TCP over UDP would be an excellent idea because it’s well-known and well-understood. At least it’s much better than inventing your own TCP-like protocol unless you know exactly what you’re doing. No sorry, BitTorrent isn’t anywhere near as complex as to be an automatic qualification.

The internet wasn’t designed to survive a nuclear war. That’s urban legendary bullshit. It was designed to support alternative routes for redundancy and reliability. Nothing more, nothing less. In reality most routes are anything but redundant nowadays.

Most of the commenters here should do themselves a favour, drink a warm cup of STFU and read upon TCP/IP before they even dare to open their uneducated mouths in this context. Really, the level of retardedness in most comments here isn’t funny anymore.

(i) I get full-throttle NNTP access completely ‘free’ from my ISP, just for being a customer (how kind of them).
(ii) You’re (probably) on a pay-to-leech private tracker.
Ergo, (iii) Who’s the one violating the ‘sharing is caring’ ethic then whining about piracy here (TINH)?

*COUGH* What Am I saying?!?1! Forget that, definitley_don’t_ Google NNTP/Usenet/News Servers. There’s “NO SUCH THING”(TM)

Stick to torrents – they’re way cooler.

upload bebo

It does make some sense with stable connections, but stuff get lost and corrupted on the Internet, add wireless to that or maybe a slightly fault router/switch/modem/network adapter that a lot of people have but don’t know because TCP mostly takes care of it and it will likely be a lot slower and more wasteful. Maybe using TCP as a backup for connections that is problematic make it all good.

I wish them luck destroying it!

What’s the hold up?

until then… ahoy! pirates!

AFAIK, NNTP goes over a TCP connection as well, there’s a difference between application protocols and transport protocols.

And it really isn’t worth paying money just to get maybe a 10% faster download, if that. Save your money.

I’m actually glad that morons – such as this commenter – are able to let the world know how moronic they are. I don’t want them to shut up. I want everyone to know their moronic thoughts. That way everyone else can know never to allow them to be in charge of anything outside of their basement.

I like the sound of this. Anything with the potential to limit the ability for 3rd parties to control, which invariably leads to abuse of power, is a good thing in my eyes. If you allow for controls to form your freedoms are screwed unless in perfect alignment with the controlling powers.

Or something.

The hole world is full of nonsense and the internet just makes my brain hurt…….

Reducing overhead will help congestion not cause it. Bittorrent is taking the lions share of bandwidth, but that’s not at the expense of other programs or protocols, it just shadows peoples habits, more users use bittorrent, simple as that.

This guy is indeed a joke and apparently doesn’t have a basic grasp of the technology he’s talking about let alone torrents.

UDP was NOT designed with voip in mind. The protocol was designed in the late 70′s early 80s for christ sake.

UDP is a perfect fit for torrents. UDP does not provide reliability or integrity options, it merely chunks and sends data, assuming the application using the protocol is handling error checking and sequencing. Torrents use a built in hash check for error checking, and using TCP is a waste, as UDP seems to fit right into torrents.

To help this jackass get a grasp of this……

UDP would be smaller packets than the same transfer over TCP as UDP uses less bits, simple as that.

The traffic is going to change protocols, it’s not going to shrink or grow by any large margin, it’s merely going to use the most efficient method of delivery for torrented content.

If IPS’s would simply adopt the torrent model into some of their hosting services, we’d see large increases of bandwidth across the board.

Then again, if these telcos used the money they earn selling their service to actually maintain and upgrade their network like the are supposed to, non of this would be a concern.

+ rs USES HTTP, WHAT CAN THEY DO?
THEY LIMIT TOTAL BANDWIDTH.
NOT LIMIT PROTOCOLS, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
FOR ANYONE ELSE TO HOST CLIENT SERVER HTTP DL’S THEY GET FUCKED, BUT RAPIDSHARE?
NO NO NEVER, NOT A FELLOW CORPORATION.

I never realised BitTorrent was so dangerous! I’m putting my tinfoil hat on now.

I disagree about the amount of time it takes content to be uploaded to Usenet. Scene content (apps, movies & TV) is usually up within 15 minutes of pre time, sooner quite often. I use Newzbin to find files on Usenet mostly: the reports may take longet but there’s nothing top stop you looking at all the groups and get it yourself. It doesn’t usually beat good scene trackers but it kicks the shit out of public trackers as far as pre goes.

Usenet is fast – always fast, for every file. I still use BT (private trackers only thank you) but I get most of my content from Usenet.

People will say Usenet is crap but they don’t know how to use it basically. You cannot beat instant, maximum download speed, security and 4.5 million binaries (releases) of content… That’s most scene content and a shitload more user contributed. With an indexer like Newzbin – most people in the know agree this is the best hands down – it’s easier than finding and using torrents.

Yet I still use BitTorrent as sometimes content gets there first, and may take a week or more to be uploaded to newsgroups.

Usenet is the way to go with stuff that is currently on the MAFIAA’s radar – you’ll never receive an infringement notice or be targetted by anti-piracy lawyers (like DavenPORN Lyons).

What Richard Bennett said was largely true although his argument that uTP will destroy the internet is almost certianly a non sequitur. In comparison, Ben Jones is almost just plainly lying and trying to hide it: TCP was in part designed for things like large file transfers and there’s no denying that. TCP might not be right for bittorrent, but please don’t misinform the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol

Wow, thanks, this whole post was just gibberish until you pointed out that mistake, thanks. :s

I have never been too impressed by The Register. At best it is a mixed bag. If I want good tech advice I go elsewhere.

Yup, good ol TCP is what is causing the problem. That’s because BitTorrent breaks the assumption in TCP that one application needs only one TCP stream to do its work. To solve the problem BitTorrent acquired advanced congestion control techonology and it’s inventors from “Plicto.” The congestion control technology lets BitTorrent work without causing crazy latency for other applications on the box. BitTorrent is the responsible party here, recognizing the need for congestion control and implementing it in their protocol. Compare that to the author of this article who saw that BT was using UDP and assumed it was a naive attempt to get around ISP blocks.

The people who work at BitTorrent are smart enough to know that you can’t beat your ISP by making a new protocol. The ISP sees all and can control all, even if it may lag behind the changes. That’s why BitTorrent has been working to make changes where it can make a lasting difference, in the political layer of the network.

http://xrl.us/oy3g3

You obviously PAY for Usenet (not the files within).
Excuse me, but isn’t the whole point of pirating supposed to be FREE?!

(Usenet) NNTP + SSL > TCP

It’s like I never downloaded heroes.311.hdtv-lol dumped a few minutes ago

Never uploaded 1 byte either, so in my country I stay legal (sharing = uploading = not legal; downloading = legal)

I wrote a post about why this is a GOOD thing here on my blog

http://jmkupferman.blogspot.com/

Here in finland we have a partially coverment funded “program” to make a 100mb connection available to allmost every person living in the country by 2015. Much smaller county than US, i know. Dont think that will happen but atleast here covernment and companies are thinking of better ways of dealing with the fact that people need more bandwith.

What will ISP’s do when video streaming sites all stream HD video? Just prevent people from using the sites because it takes too much of the ridiculously oversold bandwith? Now is the time to renew and build new lines because there are going to be more and more HD video and other bandwith demanding applications in the near future. Why just make the bandwith problem worse instead of fixing it? It’s all about the money like allways, ISP’s want to make the current amount of bandwith last longer any way they can(bandwith caps, bittorrent bans, download and upload caps…) because they dont want to pay for fixing the bandwith problem. Who knows, maybe the ISP’s know of some new developments in technology and are waiting for cheaper and easier ways of renewing their old infrastructures, but i highly doubt that.

Went pretty much totally off topic put it’s kinda related to the same problem, we need more bandwith.

jess
http://www.anonymize.us.tc

Most people don’t appreciate how amazingly well TCP’s flow control works in terms of maximizing link utilization in a way that is fair to all network users. We really don’t need is an arms race of new, greedier protocols.

However, one thing to realize about P2P is that because there are often dozens of active TCP connections transmitting from one machine, fairness goes pretty much out the window anyway. An alternate protocol could conceivably improve on this by applying flow control to the aggregate throughput for the whole “bundle” of connections, rather than each connection individually. This would improve fairness and also increase efficiency because you wouldn’t have a bunch of TCP streams individually trying to grow their windows, causing packet losses.

http://torrentino.2500mhz.info/