🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 9, 1:32 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "Industrial One" wrote (from GoogleGroups) ...
>
> >  dizzy  wrote:
> >> Industrial One wrote:
> >> >dizzy  wrote:
> >> >> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
> >> >> post an unbroken long link.
>
> >> >Can it access alt.binaries?
>
> >> Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
> >> for automatic decoding of attachments.)
>
> > Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
> > how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot
>
> "Back then" our "loot" was the exchange of text-based messages
> (such as what you are reading right now).  For that matter, same
> as today. The valuable content on Usenet is the text-based discussions.

I'm talking about files, as in MP3s, videos, documents, apps, ya know.

> > back in the dark ages before there was modern P2P networks.
>
> Usenet was one of the forefathers of modern P2P technology. It
> is still effectively "P2P". But it mostly uses newer ways of inter-
> connecting, such as "the internet", rather than dialup, UUCP,
> or even exchanging data tapes.

I know.

> "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon on the
> freeway with boxes of computer tapes in the back."
>
> > But I've been told that you can max out any connection here,
> > because the loot is stored on ISPs newservers.
>
> Maybe. Depends on your definition of "max out", and
> "connection". Note further than few and fewer newsservers
> are being operated by ISPs.

Connection = download speed. My max is 750 KB/s.
Max out = maximizing your connection speed. E.g. downloading at 750 KB/
s instead of 50 on BitTorrent.

> > I got a couple questions:
>
> > 1. Is the traffic encrypted?
>
> No.

Shit.

> > 2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?
>
> No.

Fuck! I thought transfers on Usenet were designed to be re-routed thru
a numbers of other nodes/servers before reaching the destination. In
this case, when I download a song and my request is queried thru other
nodes before reaching me, the RIAA can't do shit and I'm safe. If
Usenet can't accomplish this, then I guess it ain't the network I
thought it was.

> > 3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
> > FastTrack) overall, in terms of security,
>
> There is NO security at all. You can safely assume that any
> message you send into Usenet can be read by anyone for the
> rest of history.

God damn it!

> > stability,
>
> Since it is a grass-roots, peer-to-peer, store-n-forward network
> system, it is not reliant on any one (or several) servers for the
> normal flow of information.  This is generally the MOST reliable
> system because not only doesn't it have a single point of failure,
> but there is also no central management or support.

Yeah, it's decentralized like modern P2P networks. I like that.

> In much the same way that amateur radio ("ham operators")
> constitute the most reliable short-range and long-range emergency
> communication because it is NOT dependent on the power or telecom
> grid (or any government acencies, etc.), it is mostly battery-operable,
> and privately maintained by  hundreds of thousands of individuals
> around the planet.
>
> > upload/download
>
> That depends entirely on what you conection is like, and who
> your NNTP service is.

I mean, the process of uploading new stuff (like a new scene release.)

> After Google bought the DejaNews Usenet archives, they
> added the feature to allow users such as yourself to view the
> current newsgroup traffic, and reply to it, effective setting up
> a free web-based newsreader. Most of us despise both their
> implementation of the web-based interface, but also their
> corporate indifference to keeping Usenet relative clean.
> Opening Usenet up to your average random web browwer
> has made Google Groups clearly the curerent largest source
> of spam and assorted rubbish on Usenet.

Yeah, Google Groups has been failing me lately, delaying my messages
for up to 24 hours, not displaying all messages in a cross-posted
thread, not supporting HTML codes like before. I've been intending to
switch.

> > which is one thing P2P networks have over Usenet,
>
> You seem to think that "Usenet" is some monolithic, uniform
> system where all the nodes are managed alike. It is none of
> those things.
>
> > but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
> > bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has
> > over P2P, so  meh.
>
> You'll have to explain what that means if you want anyone to
> respond to it.  Note further that "P2P networks" is not a
> monolithic operation, either. They all have certain quirks and
> design features different from one-another.

An ideal decentralized network would be operated by a professional,
trustworthy closed-source client that bootstraps, assigns peers with
fast connections to become supernodes, who will be constantly
connected to each other, each about a thousand peers connected to
them, their IP, list of files and the metadata of the files, and when
a peer searches for something, his request is queried to the supernode
he is connected to, which searches his list of peers for matches, and
passes the request on to another supernode if no matches are found and
so on, when a match is found, the IP of that peer and the files that
match are sent to the original requester and he starts downloading.
The communication between supernodes and peers should be heavily
encrypted, to prevent gaming the network. The list of supernodes must
have a way to be always accessible, as most are temporary and may not
be supernodes tomorrow, thus the network could lose its scalability if
users quit using the software for a week and are now unable to connect
'cuz their list is outdated. Preferably, at least one supernode must
be permanent, or have a central directory server keep track, where the
network client connects to automatically. (Kazaa made this mistake by
having connection to the network dependant on their official website
existing. When the RIAA shut it down, obviously it was harder to keep
the network alive.
Problem with this technology is that content availability depend on
the users will to share and most users even by today upload about 50
KB/s on average, even less as they are sharing more than one file at a
time. That is what I'm saying. On Usenet, the users only upload
content once and then it's available to be downloaded at full speed by
anyone. No skin off your ass.

> > I heard large files are split into chunks
>
> Because Usenet was designed for text messages which are
> not terribly long. A few KB at most.

A FEW KB........... So if I download a 700-MB movie, I'd be putting
together 700,000 fucking pieces together???????

> Young children who have learned to count to 10 can do it.
> If visible sequence numbers in the subject line (like "7/12")
> is to difficult, then that is rather a good thing, IMHO, It keeps
> the really stupid people away.

That's cool, the net could use some ethnic cleansing like they did
with jews in real life.

> > I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
> > the process in a nutshell.
>
> The subject line contains the sequence number. Simple as that.

It's automated then?