by anikey » Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:29 pm
lgillis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 4:15 pm
BiglyBT has installed a tracker server. This should make it possible to close the gap.
If i understand you correctly, it has an embedded/built-in tracker server?
A tracker that stands alone is not as useful as DHT. You need some shared space to store and share peers. DHT provides that, a unified space. Standalone trackers do not provide that, they are fragmented (one set of peers might be using one tracker, while another set of peers using another tracker).
Something better to close the gap would be public, well-known open trackers; there are multiple known of them. So that a user without DHT can just specify one of these well-known trackers and hopefully discover peers.
A fragmented system of trackers, i think, would provide less of a chance to find peers. (Unless you somehow make the trackers federate/share peers between each other, like irc shares messages between servers).
Another idea i've had (that i don't know is possible or not) is a tracker that works as a proxy to dht. Client announces to proxy => proxy announces to DHT. Client asks for peers => proxy asks DHT => DHT answers to proxy => proxy answers to client. Again, i don't know whether that is possible. But if it is, it would be another way to close the gap.
[quote=lgillis post_id=222 time=1702052108 user_id=76]
BiglyBT has installed a tracker server. This should make it possible to close the gap.
[/quote]
If i understand you correctly, it has an embedded/built-in tracker server?
A tracker that stands alone is not as useful as DHT. You need some shared space to store and share peers. DHT provides that, a unified space. Standalone trackers do not provide that, they are fragmented (one set of peers might be using one tracker, while another set of peers using another tracker).
Something better to close the gap would be public, well-known open trackers; there are multiple known of them. So that a user without DHT can just specify one of these well-known trackers and hopefully discover peers.
A fragmented system of trackers, i think, would provide less of a chance to find peers. (Unless you somehow make the trackers federate/share peers between each other, like irc shares messages between servers).
Another idea i've had (that i don't know is possible or not) is a tracker that works as a proxy to dht. Client announces to proxy => proxy announces to DHT. Client asks for peers => proxy asks DHT => DHT answers to proxy => proxy answers to client. Again, i don't know whether that is possible. But if it is, it would be another way to close the gap.