Woaw! Thanks to the internet i can beam porn and normalstrag youtube propaganda directly into my brain at 100GB/s. the absolute ScoPE of operations that go on the internet are IMMENSE. Can a decentralized network do that? I think not. This was totally worth giving up my freedom and privacy for

You keep talking like a poweruser. You think I'm talking about end-user downloads? I'm talking about all of the interconnected servers that provide you with end-user services. This isn't about that X GB/s download. It's about every single one of your interactions with a website or service requiring a web of inter-server communications (this activity is required by the application layer, not the transport layer). Your peer-to-peer network would add overhead to every network operation that takes place across these servers. This means potential additional overhead added for each one of those server communications. This means that your normal interactions with the internet will now be slowed by a factor of X. Every server communication will now need to resolve its networking via communication with a ton of distributed peers, all of whom need to still maintain a consistent state of the network via communication with one another.

I don't give a shit about the bandwidth of an end-user. I care about how such a network would inhibit the vast number of communications that occur at any given moment across the internet, invisible to end-users.

perhaps that's because... it's just the default option?

Yes, it is. And? See my sentence immediately below.

Also downloading and file sharing are fundamentally the same problem.

Yeah, that was my point. You were comparing a torrent download to a fileshare download, when in fact loading any website involves downloading. As far as I can tell, websites load faster than torrents of equal size.

If p2p had more widespread use, then there would be lower latentcy.

Absolutely wrong. More p2p users means more traffic to distribute among all peers in the network for individual peer actions. Decentralization of network processing also means that all peers need to be updated on network state. More peers simultaneously means more potential computational power but also more required inter-peer communication to maintain shared network topography. I touched on this above.

BitTorrent (abbreviated to BT) is a communication protocol

Yeah, I was r-slurred with that. I didn't know the actual protocol was called BitTorrent in addition to that shit client. I'm not much into that scene and I already have enough names, acronyms, technical bullshit, etc to keep in mind.

For a similar concept to what I'm talking about, go look up the DCS Triangle. Decentralization of information has always incurred costs. There's no free lunch. CAP theorem is yet another example of this, albeit specific to distributed date storage.

Look, I'd like to see more peer-2-peer functionality being used on the internet and I think the future will bring us much more of it, but what you're suggesting is obscenely impractical and neglects the fundamental trade-offs involved with decentralizing operations across a multitude of systems. Not to mention it would require so much reworking of existing systems that I don't even like to think about it.

Edit: Furthermore, no system can be trustworthy. Check out Ken Thompson's On Trusting Trust. I found this when I was sperging out about TPM a couple years back. I still hate TPM, though.

Under your dumb butt system, every router would have to have a forwarding table with a billion fricking rows, and would be constantly flooded with advertising messages of new or changed keys.

You're actually suggesting that we should increase the amount of network traffic and the memory capacity of routers a thousand fold just to accomodate your cyberpunk libertarian wet dream fantasy of 'no ICANN, no masters'

Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.

I don't know what you're getting at here. That the problem they were trying to solve involved subnetting?

Yes, the entire purpose of the __inter__net protocol is to allow routing messages between different networks. On the same network everyone hears everyone being connected to the same coax cable, and you have packets saying "computer number 17 sends this to computer number 29", and everyone except computer number 29 just ignores the message. These computer numbers eventually evolved into MAC addresses. But this doesn't scale, so eventually there are separate subnets with gateways between them, then you can have everyone maintain the full routing information, like, if I'm computer 17 and I want to talk to computer 193, I have to send the packet to gateway 37, tell it to forward it to gateway 149, and tell that one to forward it to 193. But that doesn't scale much further either.

To allow inter-network routing, some routing information must be encoded in the address itself. So your computer sends a packet to the router, the router sees that the higher three bytes of the destination are not the same as its own and sends it to its default gateway which is a big router serving your apartment complex or whatever, this one looks at fewer top bits to determine if you want to talk to someone in the same apartment complex and if not sends it to its own default gateway, which is an even bigger router still belonging to your ISP, and so on until it goes to the top level network where everyone must known everyone and according to Wikipedia there's about a million entries in these global routing tables, belonging to about 100,000 networks. To encode this information in IP addresses, these addresses must be specifically assigned.

So your solution for a better internet is actually a solution to better local networks, providing a better alternative to MAC addresses. Guess what, it's still not an internet because there's frick all you can do to efficiently route a packet to a basically random address, be it assigned by the device manufacturer or cryptographically generated. You do not advocate for a better internet because you're stuck in pre-internet times and your bullshit does nothing to solve the entire problem the Internet Protocol was invented to solve. The grand scope of your designs is matched only by the scale of your ignorance.