Re: Eternity Server 0.04 Available

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Michael Stutz <stutz@dsl.org> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Mike Duvos wrote:
> 
> > Eventually, the Eternity Server will also serve web content from a variety
> > of more permanent repositories, like Altavista and Dejanews.
> 
> How many other major repositories are there? I still have faith in Dejanews,
> but have serious doubts concerning the permanence and expanse of the
> Alta Vista database. Their Web index, at least, has not grown at the same
> pace as Web documents, and seeminly arbitrary sites trigger their "spam
> filter," where further URLs from that domain are refused.

What you say is probably true of the web index, but eternity uses
their USENET archive.  They seem to be keeping up with that.

There are a few altavistas around now.  I use one in europe somewhere
as it has faster net connectivity from where I am.


The idea of using altavista, dejanews, etc is really just a temporary
measure.  The long term goal is more abitious, but to garner interest
in eternity something has to be demonstrated first.

If someone said to you at this point that a useful resource like alt
USENET news was being cancelled forthwith, the hackers amongst those
that enjoy reading it would get together and rehost it somehow.


Here's one possible route to having a standalone distributed set of
eternity servers which does not rely on the borrowed resources of the
news search engines archives.  Modify USENET news distribution
software so that instead of expiring articles, it keeps around
articles for which there was either a direct payment made out for that
USENET node, or for which there are many requests (with micropayments)
to make it profitable to keep that article around.

The idea is to ensure that the use of the USENET node for eternity
purposes is self-funding.  If a node finds itself hosting lots of
eternity documents, it will generate enough funds to buy a bigger
disk.

Disks are cheap and getting cheaper.  I bought a 3.8Gb disk for $300 a
while back.  Reckon you could buy a 6Gb for the same price now, and
that was only a few months ago.  Probably around 5c per meg.

So here's the model: I want to post something which some government
would like to censor.  I include a storage fee of $1 digicash per
megabyte-year with my anonymous eternity document submission to USENET
cashable to a node of my choice.  (Or several payments for different
USENET nodes if I want the redundancy).

Now on top of this the USENET nodes can charge for NNTP access to that
document.  1c per meg or something to add to their profits, and to
cover bandwidth consumption.

Then we have a recursive auction market amongst USENET sites so that
if a site that does not have the article is asked for it, it will go
buy a copy from any node which will volunteer it for sale.  Then that
site will re-sell it multiple times to recuperate the buy price.

This can occur recursively, even small players with PPP lines can
participate by buying pages and re-selling them at a lower price to
reflect the poorer performance.

The way eternity is set up at the moment it is entirely feasible that
the re-seller of the eternity article would not know what it was they
were serving.

All the technology is here now (not all the software, but all the
technology, ecash, USENET, PGP signatures, encryption).  All we've got
to do is the proselytizing, advertising, putting juicy information up.

Heck I reckon perhaps if I code the USENET article reselling and
archiving stuff, I should put in a 1% royalty cut :-) 1% of eternity
document sales and storage charges might be a shit-load of money in a
few years.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`