Talk:Anonymous P2P

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bunzilla's $99,999+ "charge" per copyright[edit]

Would it be worth it to mention Bunzilla's $99,999+ "charge" per copyright (sharing) violation? (in their EULA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.60.173 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balance?[edit]

Whats with the editing technique of "some believe" & "some claim" & "others believe"?

Its a bit like saying 'some people claim that your nose is on your face whilst others claim your nose is on your posterior'.

--Theo Pardilla 13:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that needs rewriting. Another problem: Some paragraphs do not cite any sources and look like original research, too. I have added some sources I could think of but it needs more. Xtremeways (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some believe" is appropriate for situations where the facts can't easily be observed or are in dispute. If an encyclopedia discusses such situations at all, it should do so neutrally, by describing the conflicting viewpoints rather than choosing one viewpoint and presenting it as fact. Obviously such language isn't needed when the facts are undisputed, as in your example. Michael Rogers (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still the same as saying 'some people claim that your nose is on your face whilst others claim your nose is on your posterior'.74.215.161.213 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating yourself without providing an argument in support of your position. How is it the same? Nobody honestly believes that your nose is on your posterior, so it would be dishonest to use 'some claim ... others believe' in that situation. But when it comes to moral or political views it's quite appropriate for an encyclopedia to note that disagreements exist, and to describe the differing viewpoints, without taking sides. Michael Rogers (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

I don't see how the list of anonP2P clients would be more comprehensible as sentance lists. I disagree with the tag for that section. However, I do think a compromise might be to create a new article with a chart comparing anonymous p2p clients, similar to other comparison charts such as the bt clients chart. Then this section could have some paragraphs and a link to the detailed chart. Yes? Rusl (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a comparison chart is a very good idea. Anonymous networks differ greatly in design goals, architecture, provided services, frontend etc. There is no complete comparison chart of Anonymous P2P on the net and many people are looking for it. The question is, should we make a comparison of Anonymous P2P networks or just Anonymous networks (without reference to P2P)  ? Limiting it to P2P would cause confusion. For example: Tor uses P2P routing internally, but client doesn't participate in P2P cloud by default, so is Tor P2P ???. Also, P2P equals to "file sharing" for many people but Anonymous networks also includes pseudonymous chat/forums/websites. So I suggest to compare Anonymous networks (without reference to P2P) Xtremeways (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move chapter named "Anonymous P2P as a misnomer" to the end[edit]

I think the explanation about Anonymous networks actually being pseudonymous should be moved to the end of article. It only confuses reader, because Anonymous networks is a standard terminology nowadays. Xtremeways (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual mistakes in a chapter named "Anonymous P2P as a misnomer"[edit]

It mixes up two independent issues: (1) anonymity is never perfect because of technology limits (true), and (2) anonymity is always implemented as pseudonymous communications because nodes need pseudonymous addresses to connect and exchange data (wrong).

Contrary to what is written, nodes in anonymous network don't always nee pseudonymous "addresses". (Yes, many anonymous networks implement overlay routing between pseudonymous "addresses" on top of TCP/IP; in such network a node A can send data to node B but cannot find out the actual IP address of the node B. I2P, Tor hidden services correspond to this model. BUT it is also possible to implement a network without pseudonymous addresses. For example, Freenet implements a distributed storage instead; a node can save (insert) a file in this storage or retrieve a file by key; communication between nodes is only possible by saving and retrieving files and nodes themselves need no addresses. Xtremeways (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudicial mentioning?[edit]

Is it necessary to include the issue about child pornography in the general text? This mostly turns back people who want to use AnoP2P legitimately, but draws those people, who want child pornography towards them.

I especially have issues with it being discussed in the same paragraph as free information publishing.

It's the biggest complaint people have with anon P2P, and so should belong in the article. — Omegatron 03:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wait, what? Omegatron, are you sure? I've heard a lot about P2P, and the only subcategory where I've heard any mention of child pornography was for Freenet, not p2p in general. Heck, even encryption (especially PGP) gets beat more with the child pornography stick than p2p does. --Maru (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Freenet specifically. Was reading this and trying out freenet myself, encountering lots of "WARNING, yes this list of sites does include lists to "CP"" and "it's threatening to tear the freenet community apart" on people's "flogs". The ones that actually loaded, that is... — Omegatron 03:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Again with the loading jokes! Ah Freenet, we tease because we love. Frankly, as far back as I can remember CP was threatening to tear apart Freenet. That's nothing new. I myself think freenet is an excellent example of why one makes tradeoffs between performance and anonymity. --Maru (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading[edit]

What does "Counterarguements to the Consequences of P2P Anonymity" mean? How do you have counter arguments to consequences? They're either consequences or they're not. The person who originally wrote the consequences of p2p anonymity seems to hold the view that some of these consequences are inherently bad?!

WASTE and other information flow programs[edit]

What about including something like WASTE here? Isn't it technically close enough to this definition of Anon P2P? --Ilya 22:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WASTE users are anonymous to the outside world, not each other. "Why WASTE requires a trusted group: Since the security in WASTE relies on encrypted links, and messages are not encrypted point to point, a node on the trusted network could easily sniff or spoof messages. So yes, your friends can spy on you. But you were not really worried about them, were you?" So, if a rogue element makes it into the WASTE network, everyone is compromised.
If a rogue element with a key that you don't trust (or an IP that your firewall does not allow for your node port) makes it into a WASTE network, this rogue can still not prove that you effectively share files using WASTE.
Waste should have its own section, aren't they called darknets? Perhaps an article about people trying to promote the free flow of information. --ShaunMacPherson 12:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is Anon P2P possible?[edit]

How can a client download information without knowing the IP of the computer from which it is being downloaded?

For example, client can send request to two different nodes and receive reply from some other node.
This way only downloader exposes IP address. Seed can be hidden behind bouncer or spoof IP source address if network setup permits (google Rodi P2P for more details)
To cut a long story short: The client doesn't form a direct link with the host. Instead, the information is relayed over several intermediate clients. Each client only knows the IP of its immediate neighbours, however not the IP of the original host. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.222.40.132 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anonymous P2P Client discussion[edit]

XS is another anonymous P2P client. Methlabs Homepage

Best client?[edit]

What's the best client to use for Anonymous P2P? --• Thorpe • 18:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've used: MUTE, AntsP2P, I2p, Freenet, GNUNet. I2P is the best, then probably Freenet although when I used it AntsP2P and Mute were ok. I could not get GNUNet working after 5 hours of trying and talking to the developers. --ShaunMacPherson 12:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a Comparison of anonymous P2P applications, like the Comparison of web browsers or Comparison of Linux distributions? That would be great. Or at least a Comparison of P2P applications. — Omegatron 03:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
That is probably the single greatest improvement that can be made. I found this article searching for just that. 83.189.30.63 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on collecting that data, so stay tuned, but there seems to be some duplicate scattered on page written on another language...
As editing note, most p2p programs created outside the english region (China, Japan, Poland, etc...) (where I mean, that the official DOCUMENTATION is NOT written in english) seem to have only rough translation on the en.wiki page, (just look at the size diffrence, even after considering the multi byte character sets) leaving out more of the technical bits (that we need, to compile such a list) to be untranslated.
Although understandable, it has caused great pain in collecting data from the lesser known p2p programs.
Anyone who can translate, please _please_ leave links and translated material at least on the talk page (as there probably would be problems for writing down a half compiled list on the article), so fellow wikipedians who can not read the native language can still complete the list, until enough info is collected.
That being said, there are valid reasons for this, as some p2p applications only work on limited types of operating systems, and a first hand user experience is more likely to produce a accurate description then me trying to figure out how to read Hungarian documentation while examing the source code written in perl. —Jef 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Please, just release what you have as a list. Let the WP community help you flesh it out.90.128.71.15 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the documentation that came with my Tor disribution came with a PDF file named tor-design.pdf. That is a paper that describes many old anonymizing networks of which I had never previously heard (over ten!). Let me know if you would like a copy.

My reasons for reverting[edit]

Lardo has made several edits recently, and I have reverted them. Here are my reasons, issue by issue:

  • "Anonymous spam" is not unblockable. You can use any number of conventional blocking or filtering schemes.
  • Child porn rings are almost never commercial, by definition of "ring" (a bunch of friends exchanging things)
  • It is senseless to talk about anonymity in absolutes (as in "total anonymity") in practice, because it is always a cost-effect ratio (degrees of how hard it is to break the anonymity)

I don't know what POV Lardo was referring to in the edit comments, please point it out or NPOV it instead of removing things. Haakon 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocking annoynomous spam means blocking the entire anonymous network. People inside the network cannot block spam from other people in the network while still remain inside the network. Wikipedia itself blocks the Tor network to prevent spam.
anonymous p2p tries to achieve "total anonymity as close as possible.
Exchange things = barter system.
TugOfWar 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finally showing some intent to discuss your edits.
What is "anonymous spam" exactly? Most spammers are already pretty anonymous. If some spam arrives from an anonymity network gateway, you can still block it by applying any number of well-established filtering or scoring schemes.
"Total anonymity" is not achievable, and is meaningless to talk about ("total" in relation to what?). Sufficient anonymity against some adversary, yes.
I'm not sure what you refer to by "exchange things".

Haakon 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These filtering or scoring schemes are useless in an anonymous network, the only effective blockin method is to block the entire network.
It is achievable through schemes like Quantum tunneling.
"(a bunch of friends exchanging things)" TugOfWar 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are they useless? Bayesian spam filtering does not care about where the mails come from. You may not be able to trace them back to the perpetrator, but you can certainly block them. Haakon 13:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
algorithm based spam filter has never been very realiable and usully can be easily defeated. This algorithm seems to just look for certain words that has a high probibility of occuring in spam e-mails. From the same article "Recent spammer tactics include insertion of random words that are not normally associated with spam, thereby decreasing the email's spam score and increasing its ham score, making it more likely to slip past a Bayesian spam filter." TugOfWar 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, reading this again after 7 years shows some funny differences between then and now. Darknets now commonly have a WoT (web of trust) implementation. You can use as many pseudonyms as you want but people will often block new identities. Freenet's FMS has builtin captcha technology that is trivial to update if someone finds an exploit/solver for. "Blocking all anonymous packets" is kind of silly, now. (Not saying rather it was or not in 2006) 75.70.89.124 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tehcnical drawbacks[edit]

Are these networks slower than regular p2p since there's no direct connection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.186.45 (talk • contribs) .

Isn't that mentioned in the article? --maru (talk) contribs 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's mentioned, and certainly not in the Technical Drawbacks section. The drawbacks focus entirely on maintaining anonymity. MarkTAW 6:57AM, September 30, 2006 (EST)

Neutral POV regarding copyright protection?[edit]

The text author considers that protecting copyright laws is necessarely desirable. That idea is contraversial - see, for instance Richard Stallmans comments how so called 'pirating' is ethically a better choice than buying non-free software (though of course is still just the lesser of two evils, and using free software is better), and also Lawrence Lessing's arguments how the current interpretation of copyright laws, as something that should regulate the behaviour of general population, and not just the behaviour of the companies, is historically unfounded and outside of the intent of the original lawmaker.

So, breaking copyright could be seen as a feature of a freedom-advocating technology like this one, not a bug, on principal grounds, not just cuz someone wants to break laws.. --Aryah 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Okay, so I go to a university that apparently tracks when any user is using excessive bandwidth on their network, in order to target people sharing files and downloading lots of files and such. Would using an anonymous p2p program shield me from this? Currently I just use other people's unsecured wireless networks to avoid scrutiny but I'd like to just safely use the university's ethernet network.. [I know this is not directly related to the article but maybe the fact that the article didn't answer my question makes it permissible :P] --Tothebarricades 00:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not believe this question is related to Anonymous p2p discussion, I may clear your point (assuming it is used to improve a article). University, or any organization that has a local area network of some sort, that does not allow you to directly connect to the Internet, is said to use a gateway, proxy, or a NAT(network address translation) of some sort or form.
In any sense, you are making the TCP or any protocol you use, go through a hardware of some sort. Now, for a Internet to function, a tcp connection, a protocol used to transfer data, is necessary. And if your organization requires you to type in a username and pass phrase of some sort, before your Internet browser can access anything, it means they at least have the capability to track and combine the username database, and the amount of data used, therefore using the organizations account or network is not a solution.
A common solution to this problem, is (Although I strongly recommend AGAINST it, and is Illegal in most parts of the world) (Let's just say the source is from a friend of a friend, that knows a cracker) is to use OTHER peoples account to log in and bypass the hardware that grants internet access, making the hardware, say the gateway, thinking it is accessed from bob, when in fact, Alice is using it. This is not a smart solution, as generally they also track the time the account was used, along with the ip/hardware/location of the computer or port, and normaly a missmatch of some sort will happen, alarming the administrator.
Finally, in more recent years, like 5 month ago, there has been notes of people installing a small modified bouncer software inside lots of other peoples computers that reside inside the organizations intranetwork. When Other people use their accounts, the small software runs as a service, and as soon as they detect the presence of a working internet connection, steals a small percentage, like 5kb/sec of bandwidth, and redirects them to the cracker's computer. when Bob, Charly, David, and Elizabeth all use the internet, each of them would not notice, but their bandwidth, totaling, say 20kb/sec is redirected to Allice, who can use it to request web pages and download things. From the System admin (me) point of view, it is a pain, as all compromised computers must be re-installed, and as salami sausage technique is used, each user will only see a slight, negligible amount of increase in traffic, but the total sum quickly adds up to a huge amount.
If Alice uses onion routing, or some form of p2p on top of this (assuming Alice knows how to modify it accordingly), they can achieve near-invisiility.
As a side note, adding computers will generate a alarm, as unknown MAC address is found, and if using a existing computer MAC, the client side auth program will not work, so the cracker would have to analyze the login program and crack it, It is a cat and mouse approach, but it is as far as I could do to protect a network at the moment. Jef 08:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional (possibly defunct) software[edit]

Not sure how widely this was ever deployed or tested. --fonetikli 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame ![edit]

Why "Rshare" a good anonymous p2p was deleted in the wiki by "Haakon" ???

(15:50, 6 July 2006)

Why ????


there's also a good new anon p2p: OFF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.216.33.112 (talk • contribs).

I refactored the list of applications into the "See also" section, and removed the dead links from it, since dead links (links to non-existing articles) do not belong there. The RShare article did and does not exist. You are welcome to translate your German Wikipedia article. Haakon 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rshare exist:

http://rshare.de/?title=Hauptseite

and OFF too ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.216.33.112 (talk • contribs).

I said the RShare article does not exist, which means it does not belong in "See also". Haakon 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


and why you deltte ""off"" (http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/wordpress/ ) too ?

if you delete this until i wrote something about this ....

tss tss tss .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.216.33.112 (talk • contribs)

I deleted your link "OFF" because OFF redirects to Oil-for-Food Programme, and not to "Owner-Free Filing system". Haakon 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86.216.33.112, 1. Unter "See Also" Sie mussen ein wikipedia artikel haben. 2. "the new Star on the anonymous Filesharing Sky" ist uberhaupt nicht neutral. Sie durfen Rshare schreiben, aber es zu den Regeln konformiren mussen. Rearden9 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer distinction between anonP2P, F2F and private nets[edit]

While all three normally provide encryption and do not allow traffic to be monitored by third partys, the distinction should be made clear in Wikipedia. Private nets do not provide anonymity if you have one traitor. F2F nets often do not scale well, if people are not willing to trust enough people. Also I believe in some implementations there is a larger risk of being able to isolate the node sending the illegal data by being able to conduct traffic analysis on some nodes. For example Rodi is not an anonymous network for me. --134.93.44.90 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be interested in provably anonymous P2P. Regarding provably secure encryption like the One-time pad and MITM problems, it appears that only F2F networks are provably secure. There are good research articles at the end of the F2F article.
Besides F2F, the rest are private networks or pseudonymous networks.
F2F networks do scale, that is what is proven in the "darknet" paper provided in the Freenet article. In practice Freenet 0.7 , which is a F2F; is faster than Freenet 0.5 which was pseudonymous (see the official Freenet download page that talks about this phenomenon).
My proposition is to divide anonymous P2P networks in 3 categories: Pseudonymous, Private, F2F. Touisiau

POV[edit]

  • It is difficult or impossible to uphold laws that can be broken through P2P networks. This could lead to the breakdown of intellectual property (though see digital rights management and copyright social conflict).

It is only one POV that breaking certain laws is necessarily a consequence or drawback. For instance, Libertarians would consider loopholes around unfair laws a benefit, not a consequence.

  • With anonymous money, it becomes possible to arrange anonymous markets where one can buy and sell just about anything anonymously. Assassination markets would be a potential result of this, for instance. Also note that any transfer of physical goods between two parties could compromise anonymity. Anonymous money could be used to avoid tax collection. That could lead to a movement towards anarcho-capitalism. It is highly unlikely that all transactions could be done anonymously, however, and a government could still rely on property taxes.

Many are of the opinion that money should be anonymous, including money#Desirable_features.

  • It is easy to publish any information you want without the possibility of having your physical identity revealed. This could be used to openly publish information that governments forbid, like warez, software violating software patents, and child pornography. On the other hand, controversial information which a party wants to keep hidden, such as details about corruption issues, can be anonymously published.

Again, the notion that certain things are government forbidden is POV in that many are of the opinion the government has no right to forbid certain things to begin with. The above can be construed as a plus because it restricts the government's ability to restrict its citizens' rights. James Callahan 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, note that different people may have different POVs over the same section of text. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia using current terminology to talk about current issues, not an anarchist recruitment network. 60.48.241.127 07:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Jafet)[reply]
James, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "consequence" in this context. The use of the word consequence is not a condemnation of these potential occurrences. A consequence (Latin: consequens, literally, "following along") simply means that the one follows from the other. Not all consequences are negative consequences. Whether these things are good or bad, whether the government should or shouldn't take these actions, and whether these consequences are in line with your beliefs or anyone else's is entirely irrelevant. They are potential consequences. Period. They do not express a point of view at all. - Che Nuevara 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just leave personal opinions completely out of the article?213.29.115.8 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should anonymous communication be a separate article?[edit]

This article contains an excellent discussion of anonymous communication (thanks to User:Omegatron for the recent additions), but many of the points raised are not specific to anonymous P2P. Perhaps they should be moved into a separate article and referenced from this article? Michael Rogers 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great in my opinion.90.135.61.218 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links, Randp...[edit]

I work in the "Randp..." project. (Name slightly censored here since I am against advertising/spamming on Wikipedia.) I just discovered that on 26 November 2007 an anonymous editor added a link to the project I work in and he/she also added my name there under "External links". (But he/she spelled both the project name and my name slightly wrong.)

I feel it is not correct to link to our project from this article since our project is not really about anonymity. However we do have a page about "stealth" at our web site. Stealth has some relation to "anonymity" so if there should be a link to us then it should probably be directly to that subpage.

Note that I don't mind people linking to our project and I am a public person so I don't mind my name being there. Although having my name there is probably totally unnecessary.

Anyway, since I am partial in this matter I don't want to edit or edit away that link myself. I leave it up to you guys to decide on.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I got impatient. I removed the link. I guess even if I am partial it should be okay to remove an unnecessary link to ones own web site. Although I am duly flattered that some one linked to our site.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section "Anonymous online money"[edit]

Is there any reason why this section doesn't mention bitcoin? (perhaps with a notice that it's only pseudonomous, and any other examples of similar schemes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.60.249 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on anonymous money do mention bitcoin, while the summery here do only describe in very spare wording the general impact of it. I think it could, should be improved to better sum up the relation between anonymous money and anonymous P2P. Belorn (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TOX[edit]

Where does the Tox_(protocol) fit in on this page? - Brinerustle (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anonymous P2P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_P2P&oldid=1219321625"