| 1 |
> > <lists@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > But this is definitively not the p2p |
| 3 |
> > > approach anymore which was described to me before. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I might have to go back and reread... but p2p as a file transfer |
| 6 |
> > doesn't make things insecure, torrent itself is pretty secure because |
| 7 |
> > of how it hashes, the thing is you have to trust who started the |
| 8 |
> > torrent. outside of torrent, like gnutella, we kinda lose security, |
| 9 |
> > might as well be ftp. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Here you have a central server and stuff. Before somebody told me he |
| 12 |
> wants to create the following: A p2p network where all the data is |
| 13 |
> stored in the network (on different peers) and not on a central server. |
| 14 |
> There you get a really distributed system with lots and lots of things |
| 15 |
> to think about and lots and lots of problems to address. |
| 16 |
You are completely misunderstanding and incorrectly stating what I said by the |
| 17 |
way. |
| 18 |
I clearly stated in my thread that there would be a central server controlling |
| 19 |
the network, this server would obviously be used for things like hashes as |
| 20 |
well. |
| 21 |
To have the entire thing completely distributed with no central control would |
| 22 |
be absolutely stupid. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you want people to look at what "somebody" told you please point them to |
| 25 |
the original thread on the mailing list to interpret it for themselves instead |
| 26 |
of telling them stuff which is not true, thanks. |
Archives