New parameter to describe distribution & x.do = in magnet link for FlylinkDC ++. Factors of the choice by the user of a file-sharing network
After reading the title of the article, many thought that the first part has nothing to do with the second part. However, below I will give examples that show the close interrelation of many circumstances - and as a result, the choice of a certain file-sharing network by a user.
Not so long ago, I wrote an article habrahabr.ru/post/230345 , in the comments to it there was a dialogue DC ++ vs Torrent. There were accusations towards DC ++ about the fact that in this file-sharing network they download only on the principle of “cat in a bag” (of course, there is a big share of truth in this). I want to remind you that similar discussions have already arisen in the Habré with regard to the eDonkey network habrahabr.ru/post/137929/#comment_4599201 In fact, those who did not use the torrent at first, but another p2p network, took the global victory of the torrent rather painfully.
The x.do parameter is an http link that leads to the distribution page hosted on DC or torrent portal. If the user copies such a magnet link from the distribution description page and inserts it into the hub chat, it will appear as follows (of course, in DC clients who understand this new parameter, so far only the 502 and 503 beta fly).
Inside the magnet links look like this:
When copying and reposting by other users of this magnet link to the chats of other hubs, it will also be displayed.
This parameter will be added to one of the future versions of the TorrentPier II engine.
Local networks that have their own DC hub and DC portal will not need to be unstuck to accustom their users to download files after they have read its description. An example of how this is done now by one Minsk provider
As you can see, the situation with the “cat in the bag” is in many ways reparable. Of course, the habits of many users will not change. But the very idea of ​​DC ++ among the same and not DC users can eventually be changed.
And now we turn to the second part of the article. About why torrents are currently more popular than the rest of p2p.
It seems to me that the main reason for the popularity of the torrent is in the ability to view the statistics of peers on the distribution page, thereby to see if anyone is distributing it at all, to assess the popularity of distribution among other downloads. If there are 1000 peers on one torrent, and the same 10 on another, most will download where 1000. The fact that the torrent is global remains unimportant. If the DC hub or eDonkey server is limited by the number of simultaneously connected users, the torrent doesn’t have any problems with it (it works only with registered hashes). Also, at first, the presence of a rating and stimulation of sitting hands played a positive way in the popularity of torrents. Many people note queues in the donkey, low download speeds, etc. Different p2p clients had their own “sores”, including torrents. If you delve into history, you can see that the donkey, DC ++ and torrent appeared at about the same time, the end of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s. Naturally, around each file-sharing network formed their own communities. And contrary to the widespread opinions about the "uniqueness" of content distribution by torrents, by creating distributions with an extended description, screenshots, comments downloaded and a special link that downloads not the left, but the file with the necessary hash - all this already existed in other p2p networks . Moreover, in our Russian-speaking segment of the Internet.
For example, while the rutreker celebrated the 7th anniversary of habrahabr.ru/post/128642 , a couple of months later, DC ++ portal of the Soviet Server quietly celebrated its tenth anniversary dcp.sovserv.ru/news/70247/2011/11/07/10/#comments
Unfortunately, donkeys and ed2k portals are rarely remembered, only rightholders remember everything and do not let them relax in oblivion forum.sharereactor.ru/showthread.php?t=160247&page=2 .
Sharereactor also has its own interesting long history of creating cinema.bal-con.ru/ShareReactor_ru
Lord torrentovy pay attention:
The plan for registration of distributions on the portal was already raised to a high level by the administration.
Not many torrent trackers can now boast the same rules.
Is this an unequivocal advantage of the torrent, especially now, in the context of the struggle with torrent trackers and pirated content on them?
After the loss of former popularity, many p2p clients still continued to develop. Those advantages that the torrent had previously been largely copied and work in other p2p networks. By the way, do not forget that the idea of ​​DHT was borrowed from Kad, and the magnet links were long before they appeared in torrents.
Let's imagine what would happen if the main advantages of the torrent were transferred to clients of other p2p networks:
1. Statistics of peers on the pages of the description of the distribution.
Actually, all that needs to be done is to force torrent trackers to collect hashes from for example DC or eMule. For example, the p2p client interacted with the tracker only with those hashes, in the magnet links of which there is the tr parameter. I think everything can be done without global alterations. The most difficult thing would be to screw the work with the tracker into the user client itself. Probably there are competent specialists to whom this task will be on the shoulder.
2. Easy interface and custom settings.
3. Everything else in one form or another already exists together or separately.
Would you like to use the torrents no further if that huge distribution base, and statistics of peers in the distribution? If in the near future, a new Internet user will face a choice than to download pirated content, for any development of p2p networks, still “torrents, torrents, torrents will be heard from any corner of the Internet…” This is the herd effect in p2p and not only p2p, when an unaware person makes a choice on the principle “like everyone else”. Is this choice the right one?
Not so long ago, I wrote an article habrahabr.ru/post/230345 , in the comments to it there was a dialogue DC ++ vs Torrent. There were accusations towards DC ++ about the fact that in this file-sharing network they download only on the principle of “cat in a bag” (of course, there is a big share of truth in this). I want to remind you that similar discussions have already arisen in the Habré with regard to the eDonkey network habrahabr.ru/post/137929/#comment_4599201 In fact, those who did not use the torrent at first, but another p2p network, took the global victory of the torrent rather painfully.
That is why I am still extremely puzzled: how could network humanity leave the ed2k and Kad file exchange networks for the sake of torrent file sharing?We will return to this topic a little later, and now about the new x.do parameter in FlylinkDC ++.
The x.do parameter is an http link that leads to the distribution page hosted on DC or torrent portal. If the user copies such a magnet link from the distribution description page and inserts it into the hub chat, it will appear as follows (of course, in DC clients who understand this new parameter, so far only the 502 and 503 beta fly).
Inside the magnet links look like this:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:.........................................&x.do=http://tracker.local/Interstellar magnet:?xt=urn:tree:tiger:.................................&x.do=http://dc.tracker.local/Interstellar When copying and reposting by other users of this magnet link to the chats of other hubs, it will also be displayed.
This parameter will be added to one of the future versions of the TorrentPier II engine.
Local networks that have their own DC hub and DC portal will not need to be unstuck to accustom their users to download files after they have read its description. An example of how this is done now by one Minsk provider
As you can see, the situation with the “cat in the bag” is in many ways reparable. Of course, the habits of many users will not change. But the very idea of ​​DC ++ among the same and not DC users can eventually be changed.
And now we turn to the second part of the article. About why torrents are currently more popular than the rest of p2p.
It seems to me that the main reason for the popularity of the torrent is in the ability to view the statistics of peers on the distribution page, thereby to see if anyone is distributing it at all, to assess the popularity of distribution among other downloads. If there are 1000 peers on one torrent, and the same 10 on another, most will download where 1000. The fact that the torrent is global remains unimportant. If the DC hub or eDonkey server is limited by the number of simultaneously connected users, the torrent doesn’t have any problems with it (it works only with registered hashes). Also, at first, the presence of a rating and stimulation of sitting hands played a positive way in the popularity of torrents. Many people note queues in the donkey, low download speeds, etc. Different p2p clients had their own “sores”, including torrents. If you delve into history, you can see that the donkey, DC ++ and torrent appeared at about the same time, the end of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s. Naturally, around each file-sharing network formed their own communities. And contrary to the widespread opinions about the "uniqueness" of content distribution by torrents, by creating distributions with an extended description, screenshots, comments downloaded and a special link that downloads not the left, but the file with the necessary hash - all this already existed in other p2p networks . Moreover, in our Russian-speaking segment of the Internet.
For example, while the rutreker celebrated the 7th anniversary of habrahabr.ru/post/128642 , a couple of months later, DC ++ portal of the Soviet Server quietly celebrated its tenth anniversary dcp.sovserv.ru/news/70247/2011/11/07/10/#comments
Unfortunately, donkeys and ed2k portals are rarely remembered, only rightholders remember everything and do not let them relax in oblivion forum.sharereactor.ru/showthread.php?t=160247&page=2 .
Sharereactor also has its own interesting long history of creating cinema.bal-con.ru/ShareReactor_ru
Lord torrentovy pay attention:
Good afternoon. Please tell us the history of the creation of ShareReactor.ru.it was still when the Bittorrent protocol most likely was not yet
Good day. The project began with the home page of one of the founders of the site, where he systematized his collection of films. Also at the same time, the films were laid out for free access to the eDonkey network, since the person had tremendous unlimited connection speeds. Well, for completeness of information, each description of the film was supplied with a hash, and accordingly ed2k hashes were selected as the hash
The plan for registration of distributions on the portal was already raised to a high level by the administration.
What did you rely on when developing the ShareReactor.ru concept? Did they use the experience of their overseas "brother"?
')
The basic concept is a clear, complete description, high availability of indexed files, as well as their quality.
Only DVDRip-s, no screen, even if long-awaited and promoted.
As for the use of experience, then the decision on the structure of the site IMHO is obvious - a convenient database ...
Not many torrent trackers can now boast the same rules.
Is this an unequivocal advantage of the torrent, especially now, in the context of the struggle with torrent trackers and pirated content on them?
After the loss of former popularity, many p2p clients still continued to develop. Those advantages that the torrent had previously been largely copied and work in other p2p networks. By the way, do not forget that the idea of ​​DHT was borrowed from Kad, and the magnet links were long before they appeared in torrents.
Let's imagine what would happen if the main advantages of the torrent were transferred to clients of other p2p networks:
1. Statistics of peers on the pages of the description of the distribution.
Actually, all that needs to be done is to force torrent trackers to collect hashes from for example DC or eMule. For example, the p2p client interacted with the tracker only with those hashes, in the magnet links of which there is the tr parameter. I think everything can be done without global alterations. The most difficult thing would be to screw the work with the tracker into the user client itself. Probably there are competent specialists to whom this task will be on the shoulder.
2. Easy interface and custom settings.
3. Everything else in one form or another already exists together or separately.
Would you like to use the torrents no further if that huge distribution base, and statistics of peers in the distribution? If in the near future, a new Internet user will face a choice than to download pirated content, for any development of p2p networks, still “torrents, torrents, torrents will be heard from any corner of the Internet…” This is the herd effect in p2p and not only p2p, when an unaware person makes a choice on the principle “like everyone else”. Is this choice the right one?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/247209/
All Articles