[JohnDoe345]

Originally posted by SA_Dave
@JohnDoe - I apologise if any of my remarks were interpreted by you as offensive.

I didn't interpret it as offensive. The the reason that I replied to that one comment you made is that I've seen these arguments get pretty ugly in other forums. Most of those arguments only consisted of 56k'ers blaming broadband users and broadband users blaming 56k users. Nothing useful really cames out of those discussions except a hostile divide within the p2p community.

I might have overly pushed my point that not everyone fits into the generalization and stereotypes that are usually voiced so quickly and strongly in this topic. For that I apologize. It's just that I've noticed that usually when these discussions turn into anger they quickly go downhill and lose all usefulness except to vent people's frustrations.

Originally posted by SA_Dave
I feel that the problem with leeching is a priority!

Yes, I agree with that. Currently there is very little that the user can do to better prioritize their bandwidth in a way that will better benefit the community. I have quoted this statement and I've noticed that you have also quoted this statement made by TG below. It basically summons up this whole issue in one brilliantly brief statement (just standard excellence by TG )

Originally posted by TankGirl

there is a need to classify peers according to their technical (bandwidth) and social (sharing behaviour) qualities and allocate bandwidth and slots accordingly. Most of it could (and should) be done automatically but we would also like to have means to shape our social p2p environment manually so that we could give a preferential treatment to our best contacts.

Originally posted by SA_Dave
Forgive my naivety, but what is a valid reason NOT to share?

I guess I should've made this statement a little clearer. Valid reasons are hard to come by. There aren't that many of them and with current p2p technology it's almost impossible to prove if users are lying or not. When I said not to share I didn't mean not to share ever. To not be a leech you do have to share but it has been argued that it doesn't always have to be in a direct straight forward trade manner meaning that if you download you should be uploading at the same time. Some users might share a lot at home and even leave their computers on to act like a server but while at work they can't share because their company prohibits it.

So they have shared or are continuing to share...just not on the same computer. This is a common problem because many companies have fast T1 lines that people like to use for downloading but some type of corporate firewall blocks sharing. The problem is how do we know if this person is actually sharing at home to make up for all the bandwidth that they have taken?

Originally posted by SA_Dave
The excuse that uploading slows downloads is unfounded.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that. I don't know about other broadband services but with cable (at least my cable modem service) there is a direct and noticable different in speeds depending on how much bandwidth is being used to upload. I believe it's just a weakness in the technology. I've noticed that if I allow my full upload bandwidth to be shared my speeds drop dramatically. I can literally see my download speeds climb when I decrease my upload speeds and the same thing when I go the other way. Although, I haven't tried it I assume that it would be faster or somewhat faster when you don't share at all.

Originally posted by SA_Dave
Again the solution is to encourage sharing. It should be transparently complex ie. the program must be so easy to use that complete newbies don't need any other program or even know how to use windows explorer, yet intelligent enough to adapt to any changing conditions.

Yes, agreed. I've pretty much have stated something simaliar. I believe that's the best way to reduce the leeching. Maybe it's just me but I think most users respond better to a reward system rather then a harsh punishment or exclusion system.

Originally posted by SA_Dave
Some sort of compromise has to be made, something like DC yet less restrictive and elitist.

I agree compromises have to be agreed upon because nothing is perfect. One of the biggest flaw with DC is the huge requirements they enforce. There are a handful of hubs with lower requirments but most of them are out of reach for most users. One of the things that I do like about DC is that they have the ability to kick or ban disruptive users which in itself is good and bad. On the one hand it does keep most users honest for fear of being banned from a great hub, but on the other hand the system is only as fair as the mods/admin who are running it.