Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Movies Television Entertainment

Popular Torrent Site ExtraTorrent Permanently Shuts Down (torrentfreak.com) 169

ExtraTorrent, the world's second largest torrent index, on Wednesday said it is permanently shutting its doors. The site, which launched in 2006, had steadily climbed the ranks in the piracy world to become the second most popular torrent site, observing millions of daily views. TorrentFreak adds: "ExtraTorrent with all mirrors goes offline.. We permanently erase all data. Stay away from fake ExtraTorrent websites and clones. Thx to all ET supporters and torrent community. ET was a place to beâ¦." TorrentFreak reached out to ExtraTorrent operator SaM who confirmed that this is indeed the end of the road for the site. "It's time we say goodbye," he said, without providing more details. [...] ExtraTorrent is the latest in a series of BitTorrent giants to fall in recent months. Previously, sites including KickassTorrents, Torrentz.eu, TorrentHound and What.cd went offline.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Popular Torrent Site ExtraTorrent Permanently Shuts Down

Comments Filter:
  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @02:47PM (#54435907)

    Nyaa.se was shut down voluntarily as well at the beginning of the month, but a group from the fandom and people close to the old site started a replacement that will eventually be just like the old site for all intents and purposes.

  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2016q1@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @02:48PM (#54435923) Homepage Journal

    How am I going to download all that open-source software, that I used to download with BitTorrent?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Ironically i depend on bittorrent for my Ubuntu iso's and new copys of Flightgear which are almost 2 Gb now.

      • Dude I had no idea about flightgear! I play an old version of MS Flight Sim. I'll definitely check that out,
        • by ogdenk ( 712300 )

          Dude I had no idea about flightgear! I play an old version of MS Flight Sim. I'll definitely check that out,

          Flightgear has been around a long time. It's a great sim. I just get bored quickly without being able to blow shit up so I start playing IL2 1946 or CoD instead which gives me a realistic sim and a the fun of strafing Russians.

      • i depend on bittorrent for my Ubuntu iso'
        As do I, but I'm not going to go to a pirate tracker to find it. I'd rather be sure to get a magnet/.torrent from Ubuntu and know that it's not tampered with.

        • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

          couldn't you just verify the checksum? Heck, signatures should be available too...

          It doesn't really matter where you download it from...

          • Yeah, sure I could. And when I get to the page with the checksums listed, there's a link to the .torrent / magnet right there on the same page. Searching a tracker is just duplicating my efforts.

            • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

              What if your Ubuntu site had been hacked? Verify checksums from different sources. I also use signatures when available, combined with checksums. ABC baby you and me!

              Example:
              $ sha256sum jdk-8u121-linux-i586.tar.gz
              f7d6cf1468c5e71ff097bec0189caccdd8e709a2a88a2c9849ad6200c0f33d4c jdk-8u121-linux-i586.tar.gz

              Now just google for:
              f7d6cf1468c5e71ff097bec0189caccdd8e709a2a88a2c9849ad6200c0f33d4c

              You get the idea.

              • Yeah, you could also Google the checksum you find on the Ubuntu web site and verify it before wasting the time and bandwidth to download.

                • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                  Hint: You have to do the checksum anyway after you have spent the bandwidth. There is no way to trust a server in advance.

                  • If the checksum matches, then you can download and verify. If a bad actor wanted to hack the Ubuntu web site, they would change the checksum on the page to match the bad download - which wouldn't match posted checksums elsewhere.

                    None of these arguments have told me why a torrent tracker is more trustworthy or more convenient than the source - which was the entire point of the thread.

                    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                      If the checksum matches, then you can download and verify.

                      If the checksum matches what? Since if I understand you correctly, you haven't downloaded anything yet. The only way to see if a checksum matches is to first download the content.

                      Most of the time, checksum webpages are not even hosted on the same server as the download links which seems logical to me.

                    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                      Also, don't forget digital signatures. Use them when available but double-check with checksums. With proper chain of trust, checksums are just as good as digital signature although. Signing is just signing a checksum with PKA/RSA logic which constitute a way to establish trust in the checksum, that is about it.

                      But then again, you have to download the content first ;-(

                    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                      None of these arguments have told me why a torrent tracker is more trustworthy or more convenient than the source - which was the entire point of the thread.

                      Don't trust anybody, period.

                    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                      Hello again,

                      Here is a nice youtube video that covers somehow the matter of trust webs:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

                      more formally:
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

                      PKI

    • Just like always [slackware.com]. You gotta problem?

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Just like always [slackware.com]. You gotta problem?

        I don't, but this guy [slashdot.org] — and all of the adoring moderators of his — might:

        In the debate about file sharing, please speak up for the legal uses of it.

        That's what I tried to do today, and what did I get?..

        • That's what I tried to do today, and what did I get?

          I don't know. I answered your question. What were you expecting?

    • by Jamu ( 852752 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @04:24PM (#54436591)
      How am I going to download all those illicit copyrighted jokes!
  • by jediborg ( 4808835 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:07PM (#54436047)
    And use technology to create an amazing decentralized pirate torrenting site that can never be shut down!

    Also we need to stop using the word 'pirate' i think we lost the intellectual debate the moment we adopted the term. Its 'file sharing". I bet you if i asked ten random people on the street if they think piracy is wrong, most would say yes. But if i asked 10 random people if 'file sharing' was wrong and should be illegal, they would say 'No! you should be able to share files"
    • File sharing is fine. Piracy denotes *illegal* file sharing. That's what torrent sites are for. If you ask people if they thought "illegally sharing files" was wrong, then they would mostly not say "no!"

      • What about illegally sharing pirates?
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) *

        Piracy denotes *illegal* file sharing.

        Which accounts for the majority of torrent use. To say different is to lie to yourself.

      • by jediborg ( 4808835 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @04:37PM (#54436691)
        If you put the word 'illegally' then yeah, i think most would say no. The problem is, i don't think it is EVER a crime to share ANY information. The only crime one can do with information is to bypass someones firewalls and security measures to gain access to information stored on a hard drive that does not belong to you. That to me is 'digital trespassing' but i don't think sharing information over the internet should ever be a crime, in any form whatsoever
        • by quenda ( 644621 )

          but i don't think sharing information over the internet should ever be a crime, in any form whatsoever

          No secrets? No privacy? That's a bit broad. I prefer the way that patents work.
          You can choose to keep something secret, or you can patent it. Then everyone gets to see it, and in exchange you get certain rights for royalties from commercial use.
          There is no need to ban sharing any more than sharing books is banned. It just creates an un-policable crime and destroys respect for rule of law.

          • saying that "sharing information over the internet should never be a crime" is not the same as saying "no one should be able to keep secrets" You can encrypt a secret with your friends public key and send it to your friend. The point is the sharing of that information (encrypted or not) should never be a crime
        • i don't think it is EVER a crime to share ANY information.

          - how about your health data, purchasing habits, passwords to your online accounts, banking data? Just asking if you would keep that opinion if someone 'shared' all that on your behalf without consulting you first.

          • If i am stupid enough to give that information away, of course it isn't a crime for someone to then share my health data with another.

            But if someone got hold of that information by 'hacking' into my computer, bypassing my security measures, then that is 'digital tresspassing' they should be arrested for the digital equivalent of cracking the lock on my front door and walking inside to read my tax returns. But the actual act of transmitting that information (or any other information) should not be a crime
        • by Altrag ( 195300 )

          Then you're wrong. Period.

          You're perfectly free to disagree with the law, but claiming its not a crime is flat out factually wrong -- the DMCA and similar laws do exist, whether you like it or not.

          • It is a crime according to federal laws yes, I am arguing that it should NOT be a crime. also, if the government makes it a crime to say the word 'henceforth' does that actually make it a crime? I would argue no. A crime has a victim, some act of violence or transgression committed on another person (victim) just because 500 stupid people in Washington D.C. pass a law doesn't automatically make it a crime. YMMV I am a Chaotic-Good alignment kinda guy, screw all those Lawfull-Good sheep.
    • by WrongMonkey ( 1027334 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:15PM (#54436123)
      Does WireShare meet your "amazing decentralized pirate torrenting site" criteria?

      https://sourceforge.net/projec... [sourceforge.net]

      • by l20502 ( 4813775 )
        Limewire(Gnutella) seems pretty dead, last time I tried searching on it there weren't many results, eMule meanwhile still has some 200k+ users and the botnet spamming fake results seems to be dying down.
      • basically the old napster, or limewire infrastructure. I haven't checked it out, but as i recall that model had problems with illegitimate files (e.g. you download Avengers, but the movie file is unplayable, or has 'cotton eyed joe' playing constantly over the movie audio) and relied on a central server to co-ordinate sharing of files. We need to develop a way to work around these issues
    • Also we need to stop using the word 'pirate' i think we lost the intellectual debate the moment we adopted the term.

      "Piracy" if a perfectly good term for the practice, dating back to the 1800's. If you have to lie and use a misleading term to make people think it's acceptable - well, that just shows the true colors doesn't it?

      • Wrong, pirates don't point a magic replicator at a ship and get a copy of the contents while the ship goes on unmolested. You have been brainwashed by the entertainment cartel thugs who have lawmakers in their pockets.

        • Wrong, unlike you I've not been brainwashed into believing that stealing the fruits of someone else's labor is something I'm entitled to do and not theft at all.

          • What stealing? The people selling content still have their fruits.

            Or to put it another way, for almost all of human history people could retell a story or replay a song. Now some thug gets a lawmaker in their pocket and makes that illegal except if you pay the thug. And you imagine yourself on the side of truth and righteousness siding with the thug.

      • I am arguing that the music industry 'lied' and used a misleading term 'piracy' to make people think it is unacceptable. When i download a file from someone else, no property is stolen, no person is left with less money than they had before. No person is left with less property than they had before. All that is occurring is the transmission of information, or bits. It is in no way related to theft or piracy. I think 'Internet Piracy' is the misleading term.
        • I am arguing that the music industry 'lied' and used a misleading term 'piracy' to make people think it is unacceptable.

          'Piracy' is a perfectly good word for the act of taking the fruits of someone else's labor without paying for it. They're not 'making' people think it's unacceptable, because the act (the theft of someone else's work) was already unacceptable across the civilized world.

          • Except i DIDNT TAKE ANYTHING. To 'take' from someone is to leave them with 1 less item of what you took then they had before. When i download music, it is the equivalent of walking down the street, past a street performer. If i don't pay the street performer, even if i enjoyed their music, am i "Taking" or "stealing" from them? That is essentially what you are arguing. File sharing is not theft. File sharing is not piracy. File sharing is not immoral. File sharing is not unethical. File sharing is sharing i
    • And use technology to create an amazing decentralized pirate torrenting site that can never be shut down!

      And deliver certified safe downloads. Consistently high quality rips --- HD or 4K UHD --- that can compete with legit free or subscription services costing $10--$5/mo US.That don't take an eternity to download or require a major commitment of the pirate's own bandwidth and other resources. And. of course, no signicant legal exposure for its sponsors. Who must still find a way to pay the light bill;

      But if i asked 10 random people if 'file sharing' was wrong and should be illegal, they would say 'No! you should be able to share files"

      But maybe not OK to share files with 10,000 of your closest friends on the P2P nets. "File sharing" as the gee

      • the only difference between 'sharing files with friends' and 'unlicensed wholesale distribution' is that technology has made the two pretty indistinguishable, and the lines which once made sense in the past are now extremely blurry.

        And while i respect the jury right to nullification, and the jury process, and your rights to a jury, MAN can 12 random people be really really dumb, especially when the topic is really technical and they are being told the wrong facts from a judge and prosecutor
  • Distributed index (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PoopJuggler ( 688445 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:09PM (#54436075)
    Why aren't there any distributed indexes? Seems silly to have an entire distributed distribution system without a matching index.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because indexes are hard and distributed data is hard. And combining the two concepts is hard-squared.

      And better yet, indexes are data, so distributing an index requires another index of the index, which then must be distributed, which requires another index of the index of the index... and now we're into infinite recursion territory. Flattening recursion like that creates a koan. There are ways of handling that, too, but it's not simple or obvious.

      And once you do this for bittorrent trackers, you'd be a fo

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        Its hard, but not impossible. Using a bitcoin-style blockchain system should allow for a distributed index with fairly strong protection against tampering.

    • Why aren't there any distributed indexes? Seems silly to have an entire distributed distribution system without a matching index.

      Ah if only I had mod points! +1

      This is something I ask every single time this comes up. Why are the indexes not distributed the same way the torrent itself is? This seriously cannot be that hard to solve.

      • by Behrooz Amoozad ( 2831361 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @04:04PM (#54436469)
        Technically speaking, It's not impossible; The problem is that it's spammable/DoSable and will need an authority to either allow/deny nodes from inserting to index or someone like our good old friend 'hosts guy' to maintain a list of known good source nodes that people can download and only share the indexes from those.
        And/Or other simple restrictions like limiting the number of torrents any node can add to the index.
        And/Or a voting system that allows all nodes to vote on others to help the client applications with prioritizing/filtering the index.
        For node enrolling, I think a memory-hard cpu-hard hash of parts/some of the index should be viable.

        As you can see there are a lot of problems with non-obvious fixes. I've been studying distributed databases for some time and i have problems putting this together. not easy.
        • by l20502 ( 4813775 )
          I used to use shareaza, which combined results from many P2P networks and it had a nice way to distribute antifake filters, which worked quite well.
          • We're talking about a larger scale here which means it will be targeted by some rich people.
        • Re:Distributed index (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @03:00AM (#54439577)

          Technically speaking, It's not impossible; The problem is that it's spammable/DoSable and will need an authority to either allow/deny nodes from inserting to index or someone like our good old friend 'hosts guy' to maintain a list of known good source nodes that people can download and only share the indexes from those.

          No authority is needed, because there isn't one already. In the centralized index situation, no human validates torrents uploaded to the centralized indices. Instead, the users do. If you go search for any blockbuster movie you care to name on Pirate Bay, you'll get 50 pages worth of hits. The first 10 to 15 hits might be useful, with various bitrate encodings and various subtitles and audio tracks in them, and then it very very quickly tails off into utter trash. It doesn't seem to hurt Pirate Bay. Nobody ever selects the torrents with zero seeds unless they're looking for something so niche that there's no other option, and no one seeds bogus torrents. Even their pathetic originators give up extremely quickly.

          And/Or other simple restrictions like limiting the number of torrents any node can add to the index.

          In a decentralized index, that limit is only in the local node, where it is easily removed. Not worth bothering to write the code in the first place.

          And/Or a voting system that allows all nodes to vote on others to help the client applications with prioritizing/filtering the index.

          The seed count effectively serves as a voting system today. It's by far the most useful metric. About the only other useful metric is a user-defined list of strings. Quality video encodings tend to have some release group tag in the torrent name. Easy enough to push priority up a bit if the user's preferred string is present.

          What's missing is implementing support for search within Mainline DHT. Kademlia DHT on which it is based has a scheme already designed:

          Filename searches are implemented using keywords. The filename is divided into its constituent words. Each of these keywords is hashed and stored in the network, together with the corresponding filename and file hash. A search involves choosing one of the keywords, contacting the node with an ID closest to that keyword hash, and retrieving the list of filenames that contain the keyword. Since every filename in the list has its hash attached, the chosen file can then be obtained in the normal way.

          Mainline DHT has omitted that functionality. If it were implemented, index sites would no longer be required.

          Obviously Mainline DHT traffic would increase substantially, but it would still be quite small compared to torrent traffic. Also, if it were implemented exactly as described, clients would be responsible for filtering results coming in from the DHT. Most users want the logical AND of their search terms, but Kademlia specifies a logical OR. Performing that processing is simple enough though, and of course the client could present results much like web search engines do, with results that contain as many of the keywords as possible presented first, followed by results with fewer and fewer matches. You don't get the fuzzy matching most of the web search engines employ doing that, but as it happens, you also don't get fuzzy matching from Pirate Bay search anymore, so that's no loss. Client authors then have the option of preemptively fetching .torrent files in order to get tracker lists to be able to rank the results by how active they are, or of waiting to let users do some manual culling first. That whole process is substantially slower than a centralized index site. Mainline DHT is anything but fast, most of the time. It is, however, bulletproof. As long as the DHT exists, files could be found.

          BEP 0005 [bittorrent.org] specifies KRPC methods of ping, find_node, get_peers, and announce_peer. What's needed is a new BEP to extend the protocol, adding search_peers.

          • No authority is needed, because there isn't one already. In the centralized index situation, no human validates torrents uploaded to the centralized indices. Instead, the users do.

            That was my point. there is some authority.

            In a decentralized index, that limit is only in the local node, where it is easily removed. Not worth bothering to write the code in the first place.

            Maybe i should have been more clear. If you get say 50 torrents from a node in 22 hours you only advertise the first 16 to your peers if it's not in your trusted list.
            I still think there should be some restrictions because the index will become very large very fast.

            • No authority is needed, because there isn't one already. In the centralized index situation, no human validates torrents uploaded to the centralized indices. Instead, the users do.

              That was my point. there is some authority.

              Well no, there isn't. There is no one who says, "YIFY torrent, approved and available for download! Cell phone cam from random derp guy, disapproved, not available for download!" Everything is made available that parses as a torrent file, regardless of content, or whether or not the label actually matches the contents, and search results return them all. Then it's up to the users to figure out, individually, which torrents are actually valuable. Swarm size is the proxy of that determination. The whole

    • by l20502 ( 4813775 )
      Indexers and DHT scrapers are a kind of decentralization.
    • Tribler is a bit torrent client that uses an overlay network for searching. https://www.tribler.org/ [tribler.org]
    • Re:Distributed index (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @06:30PM (#54437445) Homepage

      Why aren't there any distributed indexes? Seems silly to have an entire distributed distribution system without a matching index.

      Torrents were made so that you could put a 10kb torrent file instead of a 700 MB Linux ISO on your website, it was a way for a master source to "crowdfund" hosting. It didn't try to be a P2P solution like Napster or Kazaa. That's also why they never got sued, nothing about the tool itself made it dubious in the the eyes of the law. The biggest problem with an index is spam and DDoS. For it to work well I think you'd have to do something more like RSS with digital signatures and PGP's web of trust. Like say if you find a torrent made by a release group, you can subscribe to their "channel" where only they can post new torrents + info about other "channels" they trust/no longer trust.

      Even then there's issues of propagation and when a client should start/stop searching for new posts. Then again magnet links are pretty small, might just say that every update is a full replacement with a timestamp and max limit like 1000 torrents * 20 (SHA-1) = ~20kb. So distributed host checks signature and timestamp, if newer replace RSS "feed". Client asks by signature hash and gets the latest version, can verify signature and start downloading the magnet links for more info on each entry. Web of trust can be done similarly, hash of trusted signature + trust value. It all sounds pretty doable...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:13PM (#54436103)

    There have been multiple volunteer shutdowns in recent weeks, whether it's release groups like JYK or torrent sites like Nyaa. No information is ever revealed as to why they decided to shut down, just that it was voluntary. I assume somebody is putting a lot of pressure on these people and they're doing it to avoid criminal charges.

    This is clearly a far better approach to stopping piracy than suing a few downloaders, but I'm not sure they can win this game of whack-a-mole. Nyaa was almost immediately replaced by nyaa.pantsu.cat, while the Pirate Bay is still running as an alternative to ExtraTorrent. It'll be interesting to see what happens if they sustain this attack.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      "Voluntarily" tends to mean something different when it comes to situations like this than you expect from the daily usage of the word.

      While there's maybe a few sites that close on their own here and there for whatever reason, if you start seeing a whole spat of them at once, there's a good chance that some police organization or other has sent them a message along the lines of "We know who you are. Shut down on your own or we'll do it for you." Its technically "voluntary" by the strictest definition of t

  • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:55PM (#54436383)
    Is there a reason one would use a site like extratorrent rather than piratebay? They all just list torrents, right? I recognize I'm terribly uninformed when it comes to piracy, just wondering if I'm missing something.
    • by blahplusplus ( 757119 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @04:19PM (#54436555)

      "Is there a reason one would use a site like extratorrent rather than piratebay?

      Stuff on the pirate bay is only high quality if its popular, if you're more into stuff thats niche or you want high qualtiy stuff you need to go to other sites. Take Dragon ball Z a popular anime, you can get better rips from private trackers or specialty trackers who's fans are dedicated to uploading high quality rips. On TPB you will find everything but the quality will vary accordingly, much stuff on the pirate bay is only 'good enough' if you want average to bad video encoding quality and hence private trackers.

    • by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @05:52PM (#54437175)

      Is there a reason one would use a site like extratorrent rather than piratebay? They all just list torrents, right? I recognize I'm terribly uninformed when it comes to piracy, just wondering if I'm missing something.

      What's wrong with The Pirate Bay is that it is becoming the only torrent site. All the others are shutting down, which means when The Pirate Bay falls, there will be nothing left. It's dangerous to be too reliant on one site. Think they're too big to be shut down? Kickass Torrents was just as big. There needs to be more options. When there are only a few, they are targets. It will only be a matter of time before The Pirate Bay falls.

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        TPB may be becoming the only well-known torrent site, but its hardly the only existing one. If they fall, others will fill the gap. It may take a while before another one takes precedence as "the" torrent site, but it will happen.

        Just like killing Napster didn't end file sharing, nor will killing TPB (yet again..) and Napster was in far far more of a "the only one" situation at the time.

        That's the fact that the RIAA and MPAA refuse to face. The constant game of legal whack-a-mole can only provide them wi

    • by Anonymous Coward

      thepiratebay websites have been replaced with viruses/malware. Seriously, try to use one and you will get pop-ups, redirects, all sorts of bullshit even when using good extensions like ublock origin, and noscript. At this point I consider thepiratebay simply an exploit site designed to turn your computer in to a drone.

  • Almost positive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gizmo2199 ( 458329 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @04:52PM (#54436793) Homepage

    That the torrent site operators got spooked after kickass torrents operator, Artem Vaulin lost his extradition request in Poland. Now anybody linked to a torrent site is potentially liable to spend a decade or more in a federal prison, even if they don't live or host anything in the U.S.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Stay away from fake ExtraTorrent websites and clones.

    Ok, "fake" implies fraud, suggesting someone might phish for credentials, but why would people want to stay away from clones? That doesn't make sense. If someone liked this site, surely they'd prefer a clone over simply doing-without.

    The big question about stuff like this, is why do torrent site operators not try to have their sites outlast them? Why isn't there a torrent of all their data (maybe without user tables)? That they want their projects to die

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Well given that they explicitly said they're deleting all their data, any clone you find is probably also a fake.

      As for why they don't want their sites to outlast them.. primarily because there's no incentive to do so. Most torrent site operators are in it for the money -- that's why most torrent sites have ads pasted all over the damned place and half their links that look like the "download" button are actually even more ads (and since theoretically-legitimate advertisers like Google don't like working w

  • I've been right here on Slashdot in 2001 when the first mention of Bittorrent appeared. It was about a RedHat distro (version 7 if I recall correctly?) and everyone wanted to get it asap. The best speed was for the guys torrenting it, compared to ftp which was severely flooded at the moment. After that Bittorrent caught up all over the net and in 2002 we already had Suprnova (RIP).

Your fault -- core dumped

Working...