Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MBirchmeier
I would argue that this supports Jayme's argument actually. The list of volunteers are essentially nodes, that have chosen to behave as a centralized server (or in this case centralized servers), I guess that in essence makes them a series of de-centralized servers, but either way a lot of information needs to be known, and is usually stored in one easy to access place.
|
But it doesn't have to be a list of nodes; you could connect through an IP address of a friend, or one left on a forum, or however. And who says that there's just the one list of nodes? Several sites could offer up lists.
I'm not saying that you don't need a point of entry; clearly you do. But when any node in the network can be your gateway, I wouldn't class such a scheme as requiring a centralised server to operate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MBirchmeier
Aside from the argument of whether or not something is truly a 'centralized' server perhaps you could get around this restriction by using a pre-existing centralized server. Google Talk (Google chat?) uses an open standard, and I'd imagine if you took the time and effort layering a P2P transfer on top of the existing framework, something similar to Aol Instant Messengers (AIM) file swap.
|
The idea has been put forward before to use Jabber as a P2P network, though I don't believe any work has been done toward it. It seems to me that most P2P work seems to go into decentralised networks, nowadays.
Mar 9th, 2006, 1:23 PM
