Project BNICS

[Mesiah / haiseM]

Was stumbling around somewhere within some old source code, when this idea dawned on me, figure'd id try and get some feedback on it..

Battle.net Interconnected Chat Server

This would be a protocol identical to Battle.net's Chat Gateway (Battle.net Logon Protocol 0x03). It would allow the ability to create a community, with a much-familiar, simple, protocol, with custom packet id's for added functionability.

Key Features:

The ability to see data from other interconnected clients, on all gateways, together through one interface.
Get shared games lists, channels, friends.. etc..
Integrated Friends Managment, for workability throughout gateways.
Integrated File Transfer (Not file sharing..)
Integrated IRC Data
Publicly Accessible Database's (Users registed, clients, logon information (time, date, home channel..)

I figure, its a protocol everybody knows, and its very straightforward. And the number of client soource codes that could be simply modified for this support, would be very time and code efficient (for those who aren't the GREATEST at coding special binary protocols quite yet..)

Please, I would appreciate some feedback on this matter. There are alot of developers in this community these days, amongst the other communities. I think it would be great to expand it to make each one of our clients that much more useful for all our hard work and dedication over all this time.

[rabbit]

Sure, in VB text based protocols are easier than Binary based ones, but C/++ (at least, I find it) is easier at handling binary protocols.  Besides, you're a bit late on most of those features, it's what vL's BotNet is, essentially.

[Mesiah / haiseM]

vL's botnet does not have the power to view whats happening in channels on other gateways. It simply tells you who is in what channel, and on what server.

My idea was to go a step further and allow it all to be interfaced together to allow cross-talk through gateways.

File sharing? I did not know vL's botnet had that either. I think it would be very useful for developers, especially across gateways. Sharing music, code, the ability to share hash files, certain documents, the possibilities are endless.

IRC integration? I know alot of people have been using this network to chat lately, and is closely related to Battle.net's Chat Protocol 0x03.. They would work seamlessly together.

I'm looking to create something simple, powerfull, and useful. I mean, whenever I get on the botnet anymore its simply all the same people thats usually on there, and a few other idle clients...

[MyndFyre]

It's possible to chat on BotNet, isn't it?  Thus it's quite straightforward to tell you what's going on in other gateway channels.

File sharing can also be accomplished through chat messages.

[Mesiah / haiseM]

Actually, if the client on the botnet were displaying what everbody else was saying/doing in the current channel they are in, it would be flooded with nonsense. Unless of course u were to use the botnet whisper command, which would only goto one specified user.

File sharing could, and probably has been accomplished through chat messages. I see nothing hard in that myself, can't hide from ya there.

However, using chat messages to do so would cause you to be limited by battle.nets restrictions. Meaning, its going to be dramatically slowed down to avoid flooding. Try sending a 3 mb file through a chat message, see how long it takes. My argument is, sure you could use the botnet to send each other files, providing your clients both support it, and your own form of recognizing the command to initiate the transfer. But this is not widely used because you would be forced to create your own method of doing so. Why not have a protocol with that method built in, that everybody can learn, and share?

[UserLoser.]

We don't have to use this monopoly.  They don't own the market with chatter servers.  BotNet isn't updated or watched by any admins, there's no control and you can do virtually all you want.  Hell, I've been on [vL] database for probably last half a year and nobody has said anything to me, except maybe once.

If someone wants to do something new, let them.  The same old stuff is what makes bot development these days boring.

[Joe[x86]]

Question, would this be to link the official Battle.net servers together, or bunch of non-official servers linked together, much like a bunch of IRC servers, which instead support the Battle.net protocol?

[Mesiah / haiseM]

It would link all battle.net servers together. It would also have a layered sub-system  for other protocols, like IRC, AIM, I was thinking maybe Zone.com if i could ever find any docs on it...

One uniform, simple protocol server, that can be used through one socket on the clients end. The idea and object behind it is, to make something people will use. I've seen too many bots to ever keep count of... but the one thing i havn't seen is fulfillment. The days of topazchat, ultimatebot, well written - well optioned and useful bots  are over. With the addition of CSB, amongst other things (BNLS, JBLS, Open Hashing Libraries, Winbots... etc), We have conquered just about all there is to do. If not, we just do the same things over again.

Why not expand to the level of multi-tasking clients, that really, truely are useful and would appear to a larger crowd. Programs we program and run for the rest of time. Programs that link all your chatting capabilities in one. Something sweeeeeeet.

[Warrior]

This really is a good idea, I'd be interested in helping out any way I can

[Yegg]

This sounds like a great idea to me as well. I'm not sure how popular it would become, but good luck Mesiah.

[MyndFyre]

I'm still unclear about what this does that isn't available in some way over existing means.  Is this:

        -----> Battle.net gateway
       /
C--->S<
       \-----> Battle.net gateway

or

   /-S->Battle.net gateway
  /--S->Battle.net gateway
C<
  \--S->Battle.net gateway
   \-S->Battle.net gateway

where the servers all talk to each other?

Also, Battle.net would allow slow file transfers without even revealing your IP address; if you wanted to enable it, you just make bots talk (like the UltimateBot Interbot protocol). 

Finally, what does "Integrated IRC Data" mean?  It sounds nice, but vague.

[Networks]

I'm still unclear about what this does that isn't available in some way over existing means.  Is this:

        -----> Battle.net gateway
       /
C--->S<
       \-----> Battle.net gateway

or

   /-S->Battle.net gateway
  /--S->Battle.net gateway
C<
  \--S->Battle.net gateway
   \-S->Battle.net gateway

where the servers all talk to each other?

Also, Battle.net would allow slow file transfers without even revealing your IP address; if you wanted to enable it, you just make bots talk (like the UltimateBot Interbot protocol). 

Finally, what does "Integrated IRC Data" mean?  It sounds nice, but vague.

I believe he means that you'll still connect using either a third party connection or locally but a server may handle all the gateway linking involved. I think it would be best that way so no one's IP is revealed and easy modications can occur so clients don't always have to be updated. Basically all the data you can get on different gateways are handled by clients which may update the one main server.
I have one question though if it's like this: won't that take up a shit load of bandwidth when something occurs and the main server needs to update all the clients? (Providing this gets popular) This IS across 4 gateways and is demanded much more information then I believe BotNet is.

[Mesiah / haiseM]

I believe he means that you'll still connect using either a third party connection or locally but a server may handle all the gateway linking involved. I think it would be best that way so no one's IP is revealed and easy modications can occur so clients don't always have to be updated. Basically all the data you can get on different gateways are handled by clients which may update the one main server.
I have one question though if it's like this: won't that take up a shit load of bandwidth when something occurs and the main server needs to update all the clients? (Providing this gets popular) This IS across 4 gateways and is demanded much more information then I believe BotNet is.

Referring to MyndFyre's post, you are right. The server (BNICS) would handle all the gateway linking, the client would just be modified to parse the extra data.

And yes, using a string based protocol will take up alot of bandwidth if it gets popular. But the easy way of working around this, is...

Server to Server linking. If we can link battle.net gateways together, why not do the same with other BNICS's? Multiple servers on multiple machines. I plan on getting 6mb cable sometime soon, that should hold off for a good while if the project got on wheels. Then I would probably buy a shell or a host for a second server (I'll be needing one soon anyways..)

When it comes to all this server/gateway linking stuff, try and think of the old FSGS. It showed clients from everywhere all together in the same channel. This is the image im trying to capture with the linking. And besides, even when the botnet was at its peak, i don't think there were more than 100 users on at once....

Oh, and the IRC thing. I would be integrating the IRC protocol into the BNICS protocol, so IRC servers too could be linking and communicated through the same base protocol. My major reason for this idea, was because it seems like everybody is on IRC nowadays. Im looking to create a protocol for a chat linkage that people would actually want to use. If you've got bnet, IRC, file transfer, and whatever else all linked together in one protocol, why use 3 different clients? Make your own, and make it badass. And we can, because we all know this protocol. In other words, why open up AIM, MSN, and Yahoo messenger, when u can just download trillian?

[Yegg]

I plan on getting 6mb cable sometime soon, that should hold off for a good while if the project got on wheels.

"6mb cable" as in a 6mbps upload/download Cable internet service? If that's the case, well someone once told me that Cable companies do not usually allow their customers to host online servers because of high bandwidth usage. However I do not know how true this really is.

[l)ragon]

I plan on getting 6mb cable sometime soon, that should hold off for a good while if the project got on wheels.

"6mb cable" as in a 6mbps upload/download Cable internet service? If that's the case, well someone once told me that Cable companies do not usually allow their customers to host online servers because of high bandwidth usage. However I do not know how true this really is.

I run my server through cable and havent had a complaint from my ISP as of yet, then again I dont host giant files on it either.
I doubt its much about bandwidth rather that it can congest the wires if 6 out of every 10 people were to do the same thing.