Comment 56 for bug 339772

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. No need to start flaming.

What I was suggesting was a discussion to think about all of the things that
people might bring up if we implement this protocol within Mozilla.

I think it is very important to at least think ahead and not just focus on
providing minimal implementation of BT for just downloading files.

In case one hasn't noticed, it is entirely possible to do <img src="ftp://" />.
I'm not talking about replacing HTTP/FTP, I'm talking about adding an option to
HTTP/FTP. Why not HTTP/FTP/BT? Even in the specs, the src="" attribute is a URI,
not a URL which makes me want to believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to
make sure that 'The Web' lives longer than just HTTP/FTP does.

I also agree that if we are going to talk at the 0 foot implementation level,
the idea that using namespaces would most likely be the right way to go because
as we all know, backwards compatibility is the right way to go.

BT is useful for downloading data. As it progresses as a protocol through better
client implementations, it will get even more useful for doing so. Newer
features of clients (Azureus has this) like asking for pieces of the data with
its starting sequence makes it possible to allow previews of data and display of
images more quickly. Sure, BT might be slower than HTTP/FTP at first, but lets
think down the road a bit. The imense popularity of BT will encourage people to
improve upon it (just like Mozilla has gained in popularity/features as well...).

Clearly others are thinking about these problems... swarmstreaming has sequenced
pieces as well for previewing ability...
http://onionnetworks.com/technology/swarming/

I agree, uploading should not be disabled...but as soon as people have all this
data sitting in their downloads folder (and they happen to have the right ports
open), why the heck should we not make that information anonymously available to
others?

Lastly, no, I don't think any of this needs to be in the first release of
Mozilla's BT client implementation. But, let's keep an open mind towards
versions 2,3,4,5,6 as well and keep our attitudes positive about this exciting
turn of events and not flame driven.

thanks,

jon