Talk:Anonymous P2P

message: Would it be worth it to mention Bunzilla's $99,999+ "charge" per copyright (sharing) violation? (in their EULA)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.60.173 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bunzilla's $99,999+ "charge" per copyright

message: Whats with the editing technique of "some believe" & "some claim" & "others believe"?
Its a bit like saying 'some people claim that your nose is on your face whilst others claim your nose is on your posterior'. 
--Theo Pardilla 13:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that needs rewriting. Another problem: Some paragraphs do not cite any sources and look like original research, too. I have added some sources I could think of but it needs more. Xtremeways (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Some believe" is appropriate for situations where the facts can't easily be observed or are in dispute. If an encyclopedia discusses such situations at all, it should do so neutrally, by describing the conflicting viewpoints rather than choosing one viewpoint and presenting it as fact. Obviously such language isn't needed when the facts are undisputed, as in your example. Michael Rogers (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still the same as saying 'some people claim that your nose is on your face whilst others claim your nose is on your posterior'.74.215.161.213 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You're just repeating yourself without providing an argument in support of your position. How is it the same? Nobody honestly believes that your nose is on your posterior, so it would be dishonest to use 'some claim ... others believe' in that situation. But when it comes to moral or political views it's quite appropriate for an encyclopedia to note that disagreements exist, and to describe the differing viewpoints, without taking sides. Michael Rogers (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance? 

message: I don't see how the list of anonP2P clients would be more comprehensible as sentance lists. I disagree with the tag for that section. However, I do think a compromise might be to create a new article with a chart comparing anonymous p2p clients, similar to other comparison charts such as the bt clients chart. Then this section could have some paragraphs and a link to the detailed chart. Yes?
Rusl (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a comparison chart is a very good idea. Anonymous networks differ greatly in design goals, architecture, provided services, frontend etc. There is no complete comparison chart of Anonymous P2P on the net and many people are looking for it. The question is, should we make a comparison of Anonymous P2P networks or just Anonymous networks (without reference to P2P)  ? Limiting it to P2P would cause confusion. For example: Tor uses P2P routing internally, but client doesn't participate in P2P cloud by default, so is Tor P2P ???. Also, P2P equals to "file sharing" for many people but Anonymous networks also includes pseudonymous chat/forums/websites. So I suggest to compare Anonymous networks (without reference to P2P)  Xtremeways (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose 

message: I think the explanation about Anonymous networks actually being pseudonymous should be moved to the end of article.
It only confuses reader, because Anonymous networks is a standard terminology nowadays.
Xtremeways (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move chapter named "Anonymous P2P as a misnomer" to the end 

message: It mixes up two independent issues: (1) anonymity is never perfect because of technology limits (true), and (2) anonymity is always implemented as pseudonymous communications because nodes need pseudonymous addresses to connect and exchange data (wrong). 
Contrary to what is written, nodes in anonymous network don't always nee pseudonymous "addresses".  (Yes, many anonymous networks implement overlay routing between pseudonymous "addresses" on top of TCP/IP; in such network a node A can send data to node B but cannot find out the actual IP address of the node B. I2P, Tor hidden services correspond to this model.
BUT it is also possible to implement a network without pseudonymous addresses. For example, Freenet implements a distributed storage instead; a node can save (insert) a file in this storage or retrieve a file by key; communication between nodes is only possible by saving and retrieving files and nodes themselves need no addresses.
Xtremeways (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual mistakes in a chapter named "Anonymous P2P as a misnomer"

message: How can a client download information without knowing the IP of the computer from which it is being downloaded?
:For example, client can send request to two different nodes and receive reply from some other node. 
:This way only downloader exposes IP address. Seed can be hidden behind bouncer or spoof IP source address if network setup permits (google Rodi P2P for more details)
:To cut a long story short: The client doesn't form a direct link with the host. Instead, the information is relayed over several intermediate clients. Each client only knows the IP of its immediate neighbours, however not the IP of the original host. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.222.40.132 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Anon P2P possible? 

message: The text author considers that protecting copyright laws is necessarely desirable. That idea is contraversial - see, for instance Richard Stallmans comments how so called 'pirating' is ethically a better choice than buying non-free software (though of course is still just the lesser of two evils, and using free software is better), and also Lawrence Lessing's arguments how the current interpretation of copyright laws, as something that should regulate the behaviour of general population, and not just the behaviour of the companies, is historically unfounded and outside of the intent of the original lawmaker.
So, breaking copyright could be seen as a feature of a freedom-advocating technology like this one, not a bug, on principal grounds, not just cuz someone wants to break laws..
--Aryah 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV regarding copyright protection?

message: Not sure how widely this was ever deployed or tested.  --fonetikli 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional (possibly defunct) software 

message: Why "Rshare" a good anonymous p2p was deleted in the wiki by "Haakon" ???
(15:50, 6 July 2006) 
Why ????
----
there's also a good new anon p2p: OFF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.216.33.112 (talk • contribs).
: I refactored the list of applications into the "See also" section, and removed the dead links from it, since dead links (links to non-existing articles) do not belong there. The RShare article did and does not exist. You are welcome to translate your German Wikipedia article. Haakon 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the RShare article does not exist, which means it does not belong in "See also". Haakon 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted your link "OFF" because OFF redirects to Oil-for-Food Programme, and not to "Owner-Free Filing system". Haakon 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  86.216.33.112, 1. Unter "See Also" Sie mussen ein wikipedia artikel haben.  2. "the new Star on the anonymous Filesharing Sky" ist uberhaupt nicht neutral.  Sie durfen Rshare schreiben, aber es zu den Regeln konformiren mussen. Rearden9 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a shame ! 

message: * It is difficult or impossible to uphold laws that can be broken through P2P networks. This could lead to the breakdown of intellectual property (though see digital rights management and copyright social conflict).
It is only one POV that breaking certain laws is necessarily a consequence or drawback. For instance, Libertarians would consider loopholes around unfair laws a benefit, not a consequence.
* With anonymous money, it becomes possible to arrange anonymous markets where one can buy and sell just about anything anonymously. Assassination markets would be a potential result of this, for instance. Also note that any transfer of physical goods between two parties could compromise anonymity. Anonymous money could be used to avoid tax collection. That could lead to a movement towards anarcho-capitalism. It is highly unlikely that all transactions could be done anonymously, however, and a government could still rely on property taxes.
Many are of the opinion that money should be anonymous, including money#Desirable_features.
* It is easy to publish any information you want without the possibility of having your physical identity revealed. This could be used to openly publish information that governments forbid, like warez, software violating software patents, and child pornography. On the other hand, controversial information which a party wants to keep hidden, such as details about corruption issues, can be anonymously published.
Again, the notion that certain things are government forbidden is POV in that many are of the opinion the government has no right to forbid certain things to begin with. The above can be construed as a plus because it restricts the government's ability to restrict its citizens' rights. James Callahan 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, note that different people may have different POVs over the same section of text. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia using current terminology to talk about current issues, not an anarchist recruitment network. 60.48.241.127 07:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: James, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "consequence" in this context. The use of the word consequence is not a condemnation of these potential occurrences. A consequence (Latin: consequens, literally, "following along") simply means that the one follows from the other. Not all consequences are negative consequences. Whether these things are good or bad, whether the government should or shouldn't take these actions, and whether these consequences are in line with your beliefs or anyone else's is entirely irrelevant. They are potential consequences. Period. They do not express a point of view at all. - Che Nuevara 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article contains an excellent discussion of anonymous communication (thanks to User:Omegatron for the recent additions), but many of the points raised are not specific to anonymous P2P. Perhaps they should be moved into a separate article and referenced from this article? Michael Rogers 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great in my opinion.90.135.61.218 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should anonymous communication be a separate article? 

message: Is there any reason why this section doesn't mention bitcoin? (perhaps with a notice that it's only pseudonomous, and any other examples of similar schemes)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.60.249 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article on anonymous money do mention bitcoin, while the summery here do only describe in very spare wording the general impact of it. I think it could, should be improved to better sum up the relation between anonymous money and anonymous P2P. Belorn (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  section "Anonymous online money" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11340
*Added  tag to http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/mba-member-hit-with-multi-million-dollar-federal-lawsuit
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403221117/http://board.planetpeer.de:80/ to http://board.planetpeer.de/
*Added  tag to http://dienst.isti.cnr.it/Dienst/UI/2.0/Describe/ercim.cnr.iit/2003-B4-03?tiposearch=cnr&langver=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where does the Tox_(protocol) fit in on this page? - Brinerustle (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: TOX

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070215022127/http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542 to http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mediabloggers.org/mba-news/mba-member-hit-with-multi-million-dollar-federal-lawsuit
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://board.planetpeer.de/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627205546/http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html to http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified