Features I need

[labourinvein]

Like Who is the Wise Guy, and who is the lover?

Never mind Gr, you can have wideband by proxy, tell me what you would like on CD (apart from that already known)


The Original Mr Cool... Guss

[JohnDoe345]

by goldenrod
Well, you broadband elitists will never have to worry about this 56ker attempting to grab a movie off the net.

Well GR, if I have anything else you want then I'll be happy to upload to you. I have a lot of respect for 56k users who share what they can on the network. I don't know about other broadband users but my view on all of this is to find a solution and work around this problem because it looks like 56k users will be apart of the network for a long time.

I forgot to mention that when I get a 56k user downloading from me all I do is just open another slot so that others can use my available bandwidth. So basically I start out with 2. If I get 2 broadband users then I leave it at that. If one or both slots get taken up by 56k users then I add more slots appropriately. I just wish that this process can be automated by the p2p program. I believe this would be a fair way to satisfy both the 56k users and broadband users.

Like TG's description of a fair leech control system mentioned awhile back, there needs to be a fair bandwidth control system. A system that can redistribute the available bandwidth depending on who is downloading from you so that no one is discriminated against. I've uploaded to many 56k users and will continue to do so. What I have described in my last post is only if I have a new popular movie which I would like to be spread quickly so that everyone can enjoy.

[assorted]

Originally posted by thinker
I wonder how they'd like being on the outside. Ah well, just drop your p2p names and I'll keep tabs on whom not to download from. Cheers.

hehe; you're so sensitive!

I wasn't ragging 56kers; I'm on the internet 56k about half the time myself. I'm annoyed by transfer speeds that are below 1k/s. A 56k user who limits himself to 1 (or even 2) downloads at a time would be pulling down from 2k/s to 5k/s. But under 1k/s is just ridiculous and is a waste of a slot.

So yes, I AM elitist toward 56k people who try to download 10 files at a time. I mean, how stupid can stupid be?

[goldie]

For Snarkie -
For JohnDoe -
For Assorted - (j/k)

[TankGirl]

A good post, John.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
I forgot to mention that when I get a 56k user downloading from me all I do is just open another slot so that others can use my available bandwidth. So basically I start out with 2. If I get 2 broadband users then I leave it at that. If one or both slots get taken up by 56k users then I add more slots appropriately. I just wish that this process can be automated by the p2p program. I believe this would be a fair way to satisfy both the 56k users and broadband users.

The procedure above would be a good, well-defined program for a more intelligent bandwidth control system. WinMX's queue and bandwidth controls are versatile but dumb - they require plenty of human intelligence and interception to handle the complex p2p environment in a decent way. As assorted pointed out, we would actually need separate shares targeted to separate subcommunities, each under its own bandwidth and queue controls. We would probably also want these controls linked together under a master bandwidth control from where it would be easy to throttle the bandwidth economy of the entire application. This kind of arrangement should provide us a pleasant simultaneous existence in two different (albeit overlapping) subcommunities living on the same network.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
Like TG's description of a fair leech control system mentioned awhile back, there needs to be a fair bandwidth control system. A system that can redistribute the available bandwidth depending on who is downloading from you so that no one is discriminated against. I've uploaded to many 56k users and will continue to do so. What I have described in my last post is only if I have a new popular movie which I would like to be spread quickly so that everyone can enjoy.

Leech control as I sketched it out would of course be part of the general bandwidth control system, contributing to the sense of fairness regarding our sharing. But as John's examples show, there is much more to it than leech control. Leeches are just the negative part of the community; its positive social attraction is in the good content and in the good people sharing it. To them we want to give back as much as we can - and as smoothly and efficiently as possible. This creates a need for preferential and rewarding bandwidth tools to complement the 'negative' leech control set. As John's example shows 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. There is nothing wrong in preferential sharing if it co-operates smoothly with the more public sharing. We will favor our friends anyway with some other communication software if our p2p client does not support it.

- tg

[goldie]

Originally posted by TankGirl
A good post, John.

.- tg

TG and all -

With all due respect, isn't this all just wishful thinking on our parts?

Who could we depend upon to create such a dream application? Is it in the interest of the developer? Is it more realistic to hope a fellow user could "enhance" an already established program? What incentive, if any, would be interesting enough for any of them to want to develop a program with the options we need?

I understand these options are actually necessities
and anyone who's used any of the p2p programs (past and present) knows, it's a bad idea to hold one's breath waiting for a much needed improvement.

So I guess I want to know: Here's the wish list now, where do we go from here?

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by goldenrod
Who could we depend upon to create such a dream application? Is it in the interest of the developer? Is it more realistic to hope a fellow user could "enhance" an already established program? What incentive, if any, would be interesting enough for any of them to want to develop a program with the options we need?

Ho goldenrod!

Ever since Napster happened the ideas and techniques of p2p programming have been spreading among a growing group of programmers, many of them active and enthusiastic p2p users who are willing to contribute some of their skill and spare time to the common good of the p2p revolution. There are several people with programming skills on this forum alone, and there must be hundreds of other similarly p2p-oriented groups and communities around the world with their own programmer members. These are the people who will take p2p to its next phase. We have already learned as a community that we can only expect that much from the commercial p2p ventures - and there is always a price to what we get from them, in form of advertising or spyware. If we want more features without any of the commercial crap there is nobody but ourselves that can provide it. The exchange of experiences and ideas that we do on this forum serves this purpose well - we just need patience to wait for these ideas to gradually get realized, evaluated, accepted and finally implemented to non-commercial, community-oriented p2p applications.

- tg

[theknife]

I need a lover who won't drive me crazy.

In lieu of that, a mushroom cheese steak sub would be nice...

[JohnDoe345]

Originally posted by goldenrod

For JohnDoe -

Right back at'cha goldie

Originally posted by TankGirl

A good post, John.

Thanks TG

Originally posted by TankGirl

As assorted pointed out, we would actually need separate shares targeted to separate subcommunities, each under its own bandwidth and queue controls.

I agree with this too. In my first post I kind of stated something like this. We difinitely need to assign a certain number of upload slots for just 56k and just broadband so that both don't fight over each other to get files.

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.

I believe you summed it up perfectly.

Originally posted by goldenrod

With all due respect, isn't this all just wishful thinking on our parts?

It does feel that way doesn't it....but as TG pointed out there are a handful of programmers that are actual fellow file sharing users and may develop a program that fits our needs. I guess we will just have to wait and see... Whatever the future holds, commercial programs aren't the way to go if they continue with the way they are going.

[SA_Dave]

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.

I think TankGirl's hit the nail on the head, so to speak! First off, I should say that I'm a 6K (uhmm...I mean 56?K) user. However I live in a developing country with only 1 phone company (which was up until recently a government monopoly & even cell-phone companies were required to use it in their infrastructure) which has great rates. I'm therefore online for more than 100 hours per week, and even though I can only d/l about 2Gb in that timeframe, I am sharing quite a few rare videos (particularly anime, which isn't broadcast here {not even DBZ!} except for 1 movie each week on UK SciFi.)

You should all realise that some people have few options, yet want to contribute to p2p communities without being penalised for it. DSL & cable are terms that cause confusion and wonder where I live! The only "broadband" options the public have are ISDN & satellite/dial-up combos (which charge exhorbitant fees PER MB!) and for most this is beyond their means. 'Preferential treatment' should be based more on ability than disability IMO

[SA_Dave]

Somebody mentioned the fact that some modem-users are multisourcing their downloads or have a relatively high transfer limit. I think this problem is due to the way the p2p progs (Kazaa in particular, which is probably the most common among dial-up users) don't strictly adhere to their specified limits. There is also a major problem with FT clients going into 'Searching' mode for hours and downloading nothing, then increasing the no. of transfers to compensate, then spiralling out of control after it eventually finds what it was searching for! It should try to adhere to a limit of 2, while maximising throughput. Instead you watch as the number increases to 20 'micro-transfers' by the next morning! You people are being rather harsh IMO. I would literally commit several felonies to be in your position of ultimate power!

[goldie]

Originally posted by SA_Dave
You people are being rather harsh IMO. I would literally commit several felonies to be in your position of ultimate power!

WELCOME TO NU P2P SA_Dave

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by SA_Dave
You should all realise that some people have few options, yet want to contribute to p2p communities without being penalised for it. DSL & cable are terms that cause confusion and wonder where I live! The only "broadband" options the public have are ISDN & satellite/dial-up combos (which charge exhorbitant fees PER MB!) and for most this is beyond their means. 'Preferential treatment' should be based more on ability than disability IMO

As Dave's example shows bandwidth or shared gigabytes are not the only factors that make a peer worthy to us. The originality of the shared content is a similarly important dimension. Many of the ex and present 56ker I know have turned out to be excellent sources of rare or original material. They cannot compete with the speed of delivery but whatever they deliver at their own slow pace is very valuable. Then there is the dimension of technical quality. In the more social p2p networks and sharing groups we soon learn to know the peers that consistently share only quality material. These people may never rip an original album and their sources may be obscure but their passion for quality guarantees that they share forward only stuff that is thoroughly checked, tagged, documented and complete.

Apart from the technical and content-related factors come also the various human characterics of the peers that may completely overdrive all other issues. A person may have a line that is totally unsuitable for uploading so both quantity and quality of content are out of the picture. But the person may still be able to share his/her expertise, knowledge and contacts and thereby indirectly help us with better Internet connections to get some stuff that we enjoy.

- tg

[butterfly_kisses]

 

[JohnDoe345]

Originally posted by SA_Dave
You people are being rather harsh IMO.

Please don't make general statements like this unless you truely mean to verbally attack all broadband users. I for one have broadband, but I'm fully aware of the many different issues and reasons for why some people have to use p2p programs in specfic ways. I also believe that I have done a pretty decent job at adjusting to the many different needs and situations regarding the variaty of different users found on p2p programs. The problem is that currently just about all p2p programs don't have an effective way of fairly distributing bandwidth properly as TG has pointed out.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all broadband users don't appreciate 56k'ers because more then half the time we are downloading something from you since you still make up the majority in p2p programs. Without 56k users the speeds and que lines would be worst then they currently are. Every little bit of bandwidth helps when it comes to p2p.

There just needs to be a fair way to distingush users who have legitimate reasons for doing what they do rather then some users who just don't feel like sharing that day/month, or they don't want to share because they can selfishly get faster speeds. What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly.

These users give users with valid reasons not to share a bad name. The problem is that we can't tell which is which or even which are truely lying. The only reason I know is that a few times I have been curious and have asked someone of these users why they don't share. Image my surprise when they admit that their only reason to not share because they don't want to. Some users also admit that they simply get better speeds if they don't share, which I interpret as, "you do all the work and I'll take all the benefits". What makes it worst is that some of these users state it calmly because they fully know that there's not much I can do about it. There's always someone else they can leech from. Currrent p2p programs don't do much in giving them incentives to change as TG and I have mentioned a few posts back.

And just to let you know SA_Dave and all 56k users, 9 times out of 10 I just let you guys download from me not matter what since you guys are going so slow. This is a very problematic issue which is further aggravated because of the very little willingness by many p2p program makers to solve it.

[goldie]

Originally posted by JohnDoe345


There just needs to be a fair way to distingush users who have legitimate reasons for doing what they do rather then some users who just don't feel like sharing that day/month, or they don't want to share because they can selfishly get faster speeds. What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly.

And just to let you know SA_Dave and all 56k users, 9 times out of 10 I just let you guys download from me not matter what since you guys are going so slow. This is a very problematic issue which is further aggravated because of the very little willingness by many p2p program makers to solve it.

JohnD, guess I should have made myself clearer.

For me it's not an us against them issue at all. It's the few bad apples out there who have no tolerance for 56k users.

Hasn't happened to me much lately but there was a time when I'd actually get cussed out for 1) daring to dl from a bb'r and the best speed I could muster was 4-5 K/s or 3) Being told to go myself if I pm'd someone who wasn't sharing a single thing especially users who had just finished dling a file from me during a previous session or 3) having a speed less than 1 in the midst of multisourcing from many, many users at the same time.

Perhaps it was just mere coincidence that most of these incidences occurred more often than not whenever someone's connection was listed as broadband?

Label me the queen of generalizations and stereotyping

Nearly 85% of my files came from bb'rs (the majority of which believe in share and share alike mentality............

[JohnDoe345]

Originally posted by goldenrod

For me it's not an us against them issue at all. It's the few bad apples out there who have no tolerance for 56k users.

hey goldie,

I agree it's those bad apples that seem to destroy the meaning of p2p programs. If anything it should be us against the RIAA. Sometimes it sounds more like a divide and conquer tatic by the RIAA only they aren't the ones that started it.

Although, I do understand the frustrations that several users have stated. For me I'm more frustrated about most p2p programs not even addressing this issue. Although, our needs isn't something that most of the commerical programs do too well. Adding spyware and crapware is what they seem to do best.

Hopefully, things will get better and not the other way around.

[SA_Dave]

@JohnDoe - I apologise if any of my remarks were interpreted by you as offensive. I did read all the posts in this topic & I do appreciate your (and other's) understanding attitude. However, I feel that most broadband users (no generalisations intended) are concentrating on the wrong issue. I feel that the problem with leeching is a priority!

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
These users give users with valid reasons not to share a bad name.

Forgive my naivety, but what is a valid reason NOT to share? The only ones I can think of are :[list=A][*]Someone updating multimedia-rich (graphics intensive) sites or pages eg. a musician, graphic designer or web-site publisher, on a slow connection.[*]Someone uploading large files like .isos to distribute their applications eg.linux[*]Other costly business purposes.[/list=A]
As far as normal users are concerned, there shouldn't be options to disable sharing. The excuse that uploading slows downloads is unfounded. It doesn't affect my ultra-slow African dial-up connection, so why should it be an issue in countries with comparatively modern infrastructures? The "leeching phenomenon" seems to be equally spread amongst all users, regardless of connection speed, and is a major issue. I believe the solution lies in prioritising transfers (upload priority to FTP prog for example, then to p2p - like AGSat's 'Bandwidth Throttle' but more refined) & there should be some universal standard for reading 'caps' from either the ISP itself or your OS.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
Imag(in)e my surprise when they admit that their only reason to not share because they don't want to. Some users also admit that they simply get better speeds if they don't share, which I interpret as, "you do all the work and I'll take all the benefits".

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. AG is a good example. You need to share 25 songs before you can d/l more than 1 simultaneously. This model should be improved to encourage quality AND quantity, as well as even load distribution.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly.

I think that's a big problem with p2p. I don't see this changing in the forseeable future, as this is the very core design of the system (even to some extent on central-server systems like AG & Filetopia.) I forget which program has the 'karma' system, but this is a step in the right direction. However, a commercial approach is doomed to failure. Perhaps a system where quality-sharers have priority for rare files or zoom to the front of queues. This type of system is also flawed, as "quality" is subjective & quantity is a limited measure of "community worth." Some sort of compromise has to be made, something like DC yet less restrictive and elitist.

I hope I've made my opinions clear.

[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.

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
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.

TCP/IP transfers (typically used in p2p applications) generate a certain amount - say roughly 10 % - of reverse control traffic that you need to consider to have good download speeds in all circumstances. For example if you download at 30 k/s, you need about 3 k/s upstream for your own downloads. Therefore it makes sense to apply the bandwidth limiter of your p2p application to make sure that some of the upload channel is protected from the free competition of your uploaders.

In case of highly asymmetric lines like cable and satellite the limited upload bandwidth can be a real problem. Let's say your cable allows you 150 k/s downloads but your upload bandwidth is capped at 15 k/s. Should you want to utilize your full download bandwidth you would actually need your whole upload bandwidth for the reverse traffic generated. This is of course an extreme situation and would also require a source that can feed you with such a speed. Anyway, I recommend you to experiment to find a good setting for your dedicated upload bandwidth. Even a 1 k/s difference in the setting can have a drastic effect on your own download speeds in situations where you have heavy uploading going on.

- tg