G2 chat

[old_death]

I think this is a useful idea for the future of G2...


What about giving Hubs the possibility to host their own chatrooms for other G2/Shareaza users?
Allowing this would be a big + for the community feeling and it can help defelopping a culture of long-time stable Hubs that are kept up to host such chat rooms. This could go along BTW with a possibility to host a kind of personal forums and a costumizable user page via the network.

[cyko_01]

I suppose this could be done by allowing hubs to create a page that is sort of a mash-up of shareaza collections, and the profile page that any user could connect to. We could also take this one step further and allow hubs to share a chatroom between each other(duplicate static pages, synchronized conversations), effectively dividing the load, to create an even larger discussion group, and potentially even a decentralized shareaza support forum spread across the entire G2 network.

potential problem - would this not create unnecessary traffic on the network, encouraging many hubs to decrease the amount of hub-leaf connection they make?

[zigozag]

Ares has its own chat rooms but IIRC the server is managed with a separate application, no need for a hub for that. If you'd like one global chat room instead of those put up by users as on Ares, sorry to ruin for you but I think fixing the IRC client (see FrostWire, eMule, KCeasy, Vuze) would be a nice start instead of implementing a completely new feature (which would, incidentally, face large amounts of spam and developers would need to deal with it whereas on IRC there are already tools for that).

Also, if you want to share collection mash-ups and/or profile pages you'll definitely need to find a way of making these files available only on G2, otherwise Shareaza would get quickly banned on eDonkey and Gnutella.

Besides this thread probably would be better in Bugs, Tasks, and Features Discussion rather than here.

[cyko_01]

[zigozag]

[old_death]

[wieldar]

[mojo85]

Hey guys, this actually has been a pet project of mine and some of the old members of Shareaza:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network. ... devel/3783

The idea was called DeChat (Decentralized Chat), and the whole concept was a P2P layered Chatting method. The ideas never translated to anything really fruitful but glad to see their are others still thinking of ways to improve it. The old forums, actually like the forum we had before it crashed and some posts were lost, then crashed and came up discordia ... old. I had expanded on that link you see above with a more elegant approach which carried on the multi-network pedigree of Shareaza without adding too much complexity. I guess I can post this up another time in a proper manner when I get more time.

A bit offtopic, but an idea which had an early demise but could of proved to be invaluavle to Gnutella and Gnutella2 if it was improved upon and engaged that developer to join the Shareaza team (this was when Shareaza was closed source but G2 was launched) was Gnewsgroups (Gnutella + Newsgroups).

* http://www.zeropaid.com/news/3801/newsg ... ewsgroups/
* http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=17734
* http://www.zeropaid.com/news/4285/gnewsgroups_04_beta_/

It remained closed source, but I don't think the idea was complex, the site is down and the guy heard of no more.

btw; to Ryo I have that scheduler code still ... how does one go about in getting it into the main distribution source? Would you rather I just zipped it and you refine it some more and integrate?

[old_death]

This is similar to something I posted some time ago. (Has probably been lost together with the forums) If we could allow people who are running Shareaza in Hub mode to host IRC-like chatrooms, we could get more stable Hubs with long uptimes on the network.

In order to reduce the work that has to be done, we could just adapt IRC and invent something like "IRC over G2" (same commands and possibilities as normal IRC, but hosted on G2 hubs with G2 clients as participants).

It would also be intelligent to allow several Hubs to host the same channel (in order to make channels resistant to the loss of one of the coordination Hubs).

[ocexyz]

+1
This is lloong time before it could work as curent chat. Besides it is interesting that would make chat server independent. So more ready to move from one place to another in case of domain lost....

[mojo85]

well whatever the idea, in any case I would always recommend keeping the Chat component out of the P2P component. Sort of like another G2 network solely designed and optimized for chatting ... something along those lines.

But this goes back to the whole viewpoint that this is an old idea that got nowhere then and realistically won't get anywhere now. This is an idea suited for the early 2000 networks where Social Networking was not as big an industry as it is now. This is kind of pasts its prime use, the need to communicate through this medium isn't there. People can do all of this efficiently now with the tools at hand. Also P2P clients were portals back then when people had to wait hours for downloads, now things are faster you wouldn't have to sit there chatting away while the file downloaded ... it'll finish by the time you've made some tea (a movie).

On the other hand this does also have the ability to decentralize an old centralized network model, but again the fact that it can be done doesn't take from the fact that it isn't going to be popular or anymore useful. So all you walk out with is that you did it.

G2 as a network can handle real-time Chat just for the record.

[ocexyz]

This could also be a kind of solution of informing ppl about upgrades changes site etc. and that would not have to be domain dependant so that would solve one of key problem IMHO. Even if that would be only sms-like working.