h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
While I am not dissing the helpfulness of Usenet,
What do you think about a true P2p version of Usenet, in which instead of requiring a Usenet server to participate in a global discussion. All that is needed is a single p2p 'UsenetV2' client.
This is because the user is both a client and a server.
This also means that such system would be highly scaleable, which is made much more easier considering the fact that it would mainly consist of text files.
Every time you search a forum to check and read, you are downloading the text to your computer. If another wants to read it they can request it off your computer.
Such system would also likely to be more popular as a messaging system compared to Usenet, as it would be easier to use. This is because there is no need to find a server, as you are the server hence the p2p nature of my idea.
Future development can also easily include wireless support compared to standard Usenet.
Well that all I can think for now…
What else can you add to this idea?
Freemail
Free, encrypted P2P communication
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Freemail#1118425365 [lawpoop, Sep 13 2006]
bitmessage
https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page
Bitmessage is a P2P communications protocol used to send encrypted messages to another person or to many subscribers. [mofosyne, Mar 25 2016]
[link]
|
| |
"This is because there is no need to find a
server."
You still have to find a server but now,
instead of one source you have many, each
with a partial copy of a newsgroup. |
|
| |
I don't understand the benefit of peer to
peer over client-server here. |
|
| |
About the no need for a server, what i mean is... |
|
| |
In a normal newreader, you are required to first manually find a Usenet server to use. They often cost money, and if they are free, they have quite alot of restriction on your posting. |
|
| |
This system does need a person to connect to, however this is done on the fly like p2p filesharing programs. And as there are many other users online as well, it is highly unlikly that such a system can suffer a shutdown. |
|
| |
A normal newreader rely on a single server, if it break then the user is out of luck. The thing about Usenet is that it is p2p only on the server level, not the user level! |
|
| |
This sounds like an idea I posted a while ago -- it didn't go over very well. |
|
| |
Basically, I wanted to be able to communicate securely and privately with anyone on the network at any time -- not having to rely on any server, commercial or otherwise. The only way I saw this happening was to have a P2P network that used public keys to encrypt messages. |
|
| |
With public keys, you can be certain of the identity of the person you are talking with, and you can be certain that your conversation isn't being listened in on by anyone who is passing along messages. |
|
| |
Once you have the protocol set up, you could transmit any kind of data between yourselves. |
|
| |
Well the difference i think with this idea, is that it is not designed for private discussion. This is instead like a p2p version of Usenet, 'Something awful forums', and other web forums. They facilitate public dicussion, in a fairly decentralized way. |
|
| |
Yours appears to be like google gmail, hotmail, etc... Which are a totally different species, to web forums which this idea is based on. |
|
| |
I like the idea of the retrieval of messages being done by the users' computers. But you need something to replace the ability for servers to kick spammers off. Maybe have "virtual servers" which don't need any resources except a list of users they have approved, and a list of other virtual servers they have approved, and are included with the client so anyone can set one up. |
|
| |
I think a good approach is to treat each node with simple rules on determining on forwarding the post |
|
| |
- If three neighborers say aye, display post and pass it on to those that say... wha? |
|
| |
- If most neighbourers say nay... do not show post to user and delete the post. |
|
| |
- If only some then display only to user for review. |
|
| |
The user if shown a new post can say aye or nay. |
|
| |
- If user say aye... forward to everyone.. who say wha? and say aye to those who say "lolspam?" |
|
| |
- If user say nay... delete post and tell all who ask that the post is "lolspam" (basically nay) |
|
| |
so caspian... thats the solution to your problem via cellular automa :) |
|
| |