I thought of a similar idea a while back. My idea was to create an indexing service for content and people who downloaded would pay a small bitcoin fee for access.
But the fee would be split 3 ways - some to the indexing service (for indexing, tracking and accounting), some to the original uploader (for incentive), and some to any past downloaders who continue to provide bandwidth for the download.
So in this way you might pay a small fee to get something but you could make it back by continuing to host it as well. You may end doing something like a 3:1 ratio for break even. Or make something if you continued to host it longer.
In my plan I thought of using some variant of a GlusterFS to create a massive file system that in essence allows contributors to earn income off their unused drive space by attaching their partitions to the index service. Later I realized that wasn't necessary as long as the index could tell anyone where to get something.
This would all work fine for legal content and then I thought of a new file delivery mechanism that would prevent a recipient from knowing where it came from (what IP) making it impossible to trace who was sharing with you. But I'm not telling about that here in public today.
Topic: Torrents and bitcoin schemes (Read 1340 times)
It's an interesting idea 
There is no reason why the first one had to be a pirate. He could be the owner of the content and be happy that all others help seed it and profit a bit from it.
good one
it's forcing the content creator to publish on the torrent as early as possible? is that fair provided that we support the copyright?
Who is this "we" you are talking about?
it's forcing the content creator to publish on the torrent as early as possible? is that fair provided that we support the copyright?
Yes, but you know how it is going to be used.
I don't think it's very smart to send myBitcoin to any Jane and Tom Williams out there impersonating a legit copyright holder. Brings a MtGox of trouble to everyone involved evenmoreso than now. Rile up RIA/MPAA against bitcoin and this whole Bitcoin project will have been allinvain.
I don't think it's very smart to send myBitcoin to any Jane and Tom Williams out there impersonating a legit copyright holder. Brings a MtGox of trouble to everyone involved evenmoreso than now. Rile up RIA/MPAA against bitcoin and this whole Bitcoin project will have been allinvain.
There is no reason why the first one had to be a pirate. He could be the owner of the content and be happy that all others help seed it and profit a bit from it.
The system, just like torrents in general, is neutral.
Is up to each, how you are going to use it.
The system, just like torrents in general, is neutral.
Is up to each, how you are going to use it.
So what you're proposing is a system to provide pirates with bitcoin?
What we need on torrents is that both provider of contents and user of them can have a username so that the users can rank the providers and give feedback to what they provide.
Also providers could put a price on what they submit and tell a bitcoin address to receive that money in bitcoins regarding the content they are providing. For the same item providers with a better ranking would have their items listed first, so you would find it easy to pick items for well ranked providers and so be sure that you would get what you were paying for.
The really interesting thing is that once you would get your content a bitcoin address of your choice could be set and added to the list of addresses that own that file on the torrents world, for has long as you have it for seeding on your hardrive, so all following money paid for the item would be divided by all listed bitcoin addresses for that item, and you could recover part of the money that you did put in.
Here is a use case:
A provider lists an item for 2.5 Bitcoins and lists a bitcoin address for that item to be paid.
The first user to get that item would pay 2.5 bitcoins and have a bitcoin address of his choice added to the list of owners of that item. Such bitcoin addresses would be listed as long as you have the item available on your hard drive.
So the second user to get that item would pay also 2.5 BTC and half of it, 1.25 BTC would go to each of the bitcoin addreses (that at that moment would still be only two) listed as seeders of that item.
So first seeder would now got 2.5+1.25=3.75 BTC; second seeder -2.5+1.25=-1.25 and the last user that got it -2.5 BTC.
The latter could then add a bitcoin address and so, when a forth user got it:
first seeder would now have got 2.5+1.25+0.83333333=4.58333333 BTC; second seeder -2.5+1.25+0.83333333=-0.4166667 and the last user that got it -2.5 BTC.
And so on, so if you were one of the first to make the investement you could have your money back soon and still make some money from it thereafter.
What do you reckon?
Also providers could put a price on what they submit and tell a bitcoin address to receive that money in bitcoins regarding the content they are providing. For the same item providers with a better ranking would have their items listed first, so you would find it easy to pick items for well ranked providers and so be sure that you would get what you were paying for.
The really interesting thing is that once you would get your content a bitcoin address of your choice could be set and added to the list of addresses that own that file on the torrents world, for has long as you have it for seeding on your hardrive, so all following money paid for the item would be divided by all listed bitcoin addresses for that item, and you could recover part of the money that you did put in.
Here is a use case:
A provider lists an item for 2.5 Bitcoins and lists a bitcoin address for that item to be paid.
The first user to get that item would pay 2.5 bitcoins and have a bitcoin address of his choice added to the list of owners of that item. Such bitcoin addresses would be listed as long as you have the item available on your hard drive.
So the second user to get that item would pay also 2.5 BTC and half of it, 1.25 BTC would go to each of the bitcoin addreses (that at that moment would still be only two) listed as seeders of that item.
So first seeder would now got 2.5+1.25=3.75 BTC; second seeder -2.5+1.25=-1.25 and the last user that got it -2.5 BTC.
The latter could then add a bitcoin address and so, when a forth user got it:
first seeder would now have got 2.5+1.25+0.83333333=4.58333333 BTC; second seeder -2.5+1.25+0.83333333=-0.4166667 and the last user that got it -2.5 BTC.
And so on, so if you were one of the first to make the investement you could have your money back soon and still make some money from it thereafter.
What do you reckon?
Jump to: