On 8/21/07, Alexander Pevzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2) The situation was fixed at the server side. Client upgrade was not > required
This is a very interesting piece of information, and if true, points not to the fallibility of the decentralized portion of Skype, but once again to the fallibility of centralized Skype-controlled resources. I am very curious about how this fits in with the "p2p algorithm" problem that Skype is pointing at -- if no client upgrade was needed, and since supernodes are clients, this seems to once again indicate centralized bottleneck rosources. I suppose that "classical" p2p includes centralized resources (as in napster), and so code running on these centralized components could be considered part of the p2p algorithm... or is that too much of a stretch? Very informative post, Alexander -- thanks. Alen http://flud.org/ _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
