Bitmagnet Allows People to Run Their Own Decentralized Torrent Indexer Locally
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
It was a shame that the technology behind Skytorrents was never open-sourced; it was the best torrent crawler and site I've ever seen, and I would have liked to see how it worked so well.
I want to seamlessly distribute my music through bittorrent, but since I have a small fan base (and thus, a very small potential seeding pool), I found it difficult to connect all the moving parts.
I'll give Bitmagnet a try for an Indexer.
I did find that IPFS, with a pinning service (I won't shill the one I used in particular), was a bit easier and just worked for everyone who tried to use it.
But I'd like to get my bittorrent presence up to the "just works" level also.
https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/06/how-to-add-web-seeds-to-t...
This seems exciting. Have you done it successfully?
What a DHT crawler like Bitmagnet does is the following:
1. Take a few initial "bootstrap" torrents and ping them to see which IP addresses are seeding that file 2. Ping those IP addresses and ask what other files/torrents they're seeding 3. Ping those torrents to see which IP addresses are seeding that torrent
Rinse repeat.
So to distribute your music to fans, you'd just want to put magnet links to your music on your site.
Writing a DHT crawler is super fun, I suggest everyone to get a cheap VM and write/run one.
How many cups of coffee does it take to internalize hamming distance? :-)
This is not correct.
> Bittorrent's DHT is not a network independent of torrent swarms.
This is also wrong. People have used the DHT for non-torrent-related purposes.
> You need the address of a peer who is already part of the network in order to join it, and you have to get a list those addresses from somewhere.
And nothing dictates that that has to be obtained via the bittorrent peer protocol. https://stackoverflow.com/a/11089702/1362755
> People have used the DHT for non-torrent-related purposes.
This is simply non-responsive. People have used a DHT overlaid on the collection of torrent swarms for non-torrent related purposes.
> And nothing dictates that that has to be obtained via the bittorrent peer protocol.
This is a silly distinction. You also don't need to join a swarm to get on the DHT if I join a swarm to get on the DHT, write down the addresses I get on a piece of paper, then email you those addresses, which you plug into your handwritten specialized client that only knows how to join the DHT.
The "find bootstrap nodes via a bunch of DNS records, then persist long-lived contacts locally" approach is quite common.
> People have used a DHT overlaid on the collection of torrent swarms for non-torrent related purposes.
No, the software does not involve joining any bittorrent swarms at all.
I like your idea of giving its name back to a technology that just works better, and I think it pairs really well with giving back a humane touch to how we use the internet, computers, and putting people back at the center rather than thinking about tools first !
Out of curiosity, why not just distribute via R2 or similar, or archive.org if you don't need AuthN/AuthZ? What's the complexity (to you and listeners) of BitTorrent buy you?
But I'd like to put forward a practice that demonstrates that the tools that have been smeared as anti-artist (chiefly but not only bittorrent) are actually compelling tools for independent distribution.
This is by far the biggest hurdle to something like this. You'll eventually have to end up again with a centralized curator.
Nothing is new under the sun since the internet was created, these are the same problems that email has tried and failed to solve for 50 years.
Now, do you think you can outvote riaa enforcement group equivalent, if they decide so spend money on this?
So claims Elon on Twitter, a platform that is very obviously to anyone who uses it completely overrun with bots who have found it very profitable to validate their spam accounts and get preferential listings for a mere eight dollars, while scaring off legitimate users who (fairly) do not trust a service with no functioning security department with their payment information.
In general though others are right that the problem often is that attackers are more willing to play these games than individuals - you are not willing to put up 10 bucks to post on a web forum, but an attacker might think $10 to get a wonderful commercial offer delivered to 1000 people sounds really good! You won't spend 10c to upvote each individual song, but the RIAA will! Etc. It needs to be highly asymmetrical, and ideally have minimal/zero cost to "honest" users with an exponential penalty for attackers.
Obviously we are not living in a post-email-spam world unfortunately, and what we have is basically the "lightning network" with gatekeepers offloading and centralizing a lot of the problem so users don't have to deal with it. But you aren't the first person to make the observation that these are related problems!
That's sort of the central point of my post....
just opt out of being an arbiter, like public utilities do
community indexer
why download anything from a list of torrents, okay use the same set of rules
Further more, the filter itself can be made to limit disclosure of the original data while still providing a binary decision regarding filtering a content or not. Hashing, bloom filters, ai models and so on are common tools for filtering data like emails and link reputation.
Is it possible to use bots or use a riaa enforcement group equivalent to get ad blockers to green lights specific ads? Personally I trust easylist as long the community does so, and would discard it the moment it lost the community trust. That makes it a kind of centralized curator, but also very much not.
And ISPs are in a much better position to solve this problem anyway. They should ask for higher peering fees from peers that don't do source-filtering.
I mean I'd use such software (and huge DBs like that of Skytorrentz) for research purposes because to me distribution is hugely interesting as a hobby but many courts won't see it that way, and we know a lot of them are influenced by copyrights holders.
(For the record it only has a mere thousand results so far..)
Also, the content classification is so bad it might as well not exist. How does a torrent with "Playboy" in the title get classified as 'Unknown' instead of 'XXX'? Even torrents with "Porn" or "XXX" in the title get classified as Unknown. A simple Bayesian classifier should have this covered, it's not a task that needs heavy duty AI to solve.
This whole thing seems way too half-baked for me.
As stated in the big red notice in the website, the software is currently in alpha preview. Given time, Bitmagnet will be trying to mitigate the Firefox performance issues (the <5% market share means it's prioritised accordingly), but it's important that users of all browsers can have acceptable experience in the app.
But that's the technical view, what happens in court might be totally different.
(also how do they ever prove you actually downloaded any usable part of a torrent?!)