ADC

[imb]

Hi, what's the Ptokax policy on ADC?

[PPK]

PtokaX DC Hub. And PtokaX will stay DC hub, i don't see reason to support protocol for similar network doing same thing and using more badwith (more badwith = more cpu, memory...).

[imb]

Isn't it time to take the DC network forward? The NMDC protocol has been used for a very long time by now and is showing its deficiencies. Also what do you project the percentage increase in bandwidth to be? If it's not all that much more I for one wouldn't mind sacrificing that for extra features. Wouldn't you be for encryption for instance? My gf can't use DC because her ISP is throttling p2p, and I guess more and more ISPs will go that way.

I guess my main concern is that the main DC++ client is going towards ADC anyway, and whether we like it or not, everyone else will have to follow.
I think Ptokax should be leaders, change isn't such a bad thing. Granted I am not aware of all the facts, but if bandwidth is a concern, I think even 50% increase in upload speed is worth it.

[ruler]

ADC doesnt mean moving forward at all it just means something similar to what we already have. im glad that PX will stay as DC Hub as many others will be too im sure. ADC wont save you from anything at all and if DC++ wishes to move to ADC then thats fine cos its been years since ive used it anyway  ;D i bet there arnt that many on here that use DC++ most of the peeps i know use strongDC or clients of a similar nature. anyway who cares about ADC? we didnt a few years ago 

[imb]

ADC wont save you from anything at all and if DC++ wishes to move to ADC then thats fine cos its been years since ive used it anyway  ;D i bet there arnt that many on here that use DC++ most of the peeps i know use strongDC or clients of a similar nature.

Yes by of a similar nature you mean other clients built on DC++

[PPK]

Isn't it time to take the DC network forward?

Is not possible to take DC network forward with ADC. 1 ) ADC is not way forward, 2 ) "ADC is a text protocol for a network similar to Direct Connect." as ADC draft say 

Wouldn't you be for encryption for instance?

I don't need it and when i need it then i don't need new protocol for it. Simple extension of dchub:// to dchubs:// will make it with easy change in hubs/clients

[bastya_elvtars]

Isn't it time to take the DC network forward?

#define forward please

The NMDC protocol has been used for a very long time by now and is showing its deficiencies.

So has SMTP, FTP etc. Point being?

Wouldn't you be for encryption for instance? My gf can't use DC because her ISP is throttling p2p, and I guess more and more ISPs will go that way.

Well, the more pieces of p2p software go towards encryption, the more ISPs are going to start limiting traffic on nostandard ports.

[imb]

:PI don't need it and when i need it then i don't need new protocol for it. Simple extension of dchub:// to dchubs:// will make it with easy change in hubs/clients

Sounds like a clumsy solution that will only work in the short term?

But so is encryption I guess:

In separate news Ellacoya announced at the Broadband World Forum that it was releasing a software update that improved the Deep Packet Inspection abilities of the software. This should allow the Ellacoya to identify and allow an ISP to prioritise the traffic flow of encrypted Peer2Peer (P2P) traffic, for example BitTorrent, Skype. It also seems the ability to create a mirror copy of selected traffic is now possible, so a provider can troubleshoot and analyse traffic. More at BusinessWire.com.

from http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2815

#define forward please

I'd like to make it clear that my personal opinion is not necessarily for or against, I'm simply offering arguments that I'm interested to hear the responses to. ADC apparently solves some problems/bugs that DC has, and is more extendible, which I thought to be irrefutable. So from my little understanding ADC has more scope for adding further options, for further development.

And it's all very well that people want to stick with DC, but essentially hub software will have to follow DC++ since it's by far the most used client, I don't want to see Ptokax fall behind.

[PPK]

Sounds like a clumsy solution that will only work in the short term?

Is similar how is secure connection in ADC ... they use adc:// for normal hub and adcs:// for hub using TLS  :