Kim Dotcom shows off Mega's file upload-download accelerator

We are less than a week away from the official launch of Mega, the successor to the popular, and now shut down Megaupload file sharing website founded by Kim Dotcom. He will be holding what he has already claimed will be a massive launch party for Mega the day before it goes online to the general public at his mansion in New Zealand.

Dotcom has posted up some screenshots of Mega's interface in the past, but today he posted a new screenshot on his Twitter account that shows off what he is calling a "world's first": an interface that will let users accelerate their upload and download speeds on Mega:

The screenshot itself shows that the interface will allow up to six parallel connections for file uploads, with the same number for file downloads. It also lets users set their own upload speeds, with provisions for locking down those speeds or having Mega's interface automatically set the speeds.

There are also settings in the screenshot that show Mega will let users skip identical files when uploading and also a setting to disable SSL for file transfers. The screenshot claims that disabling SSL will improve performance without decreasing security.

We should learn a lot more about Mega's services, including how much their premium accounts will cost, in the very near future.

Source: Kim Dotcom on Twitter | Image via Kim Dotcom

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Valve: In-game store has made more money than direct Team Fortress 2 sales

Next Story

Teens say: “Apple is dead, long live Microsoft and Samsung.”

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Then what is he implying, because that setting description does, the screenshot doesn't explain anything, so enlighten us.

When it's off does it say "Decreases performance but does not increase security"?

srbeen said,
Hmm, is Kim implying SSL security is useless?

Some services uses SSL for login a connection and generate a new session then later, they turn in standard HTTP for performance purpose. Google does that (but also it is possible to always use HTTPS).

xendrome said,
Then what is he implying, because that setting description does, the screenshot doesn't explain anything, so enlighten us.

When it's off does it say "Decreases performance but does not increase security"?


If you simply send encrypted content through a non-SSL connection, it's still encrypted.

Then why even have the option, if it does nothing but decrease performance with no increase in security if the content is already encrypted to begin with.

xendrome said,
Then why even have the option, if it does nothing but decrease performance with no increase in security if the content is already encrypted to begin with.

Probably for those that needs the additional SSL features beyond the content being encrypted or something.

I especially like

The screenshot claims that disabling SSL will improve performance without decreasing security.

The simple fact of disabling SSL instantly decreases security...

If you guys join this site, do a little research on how Kimble sold out all of his users back in the BBS days to the feds so he didn't have to do time in prison, guy is a total dirt bag and I wouldn't trust even logging on to his site, because there is no security of you or your information once this guy gets trapped into a corner. I'm sure someone can post a link to his history..

Edited by xendrome, Jan 13 2013, 10:15pm :

xendrome said,
I especially like

The simple fact of disabling SSL instantly decreases security...

If the security being used can be easily deciphered, is it really security?

We wait while you explain how to deciper SSL 128bit, or even 56bit. Unless you have the decryption key or some type of exploit in the system using to exploit it, sure nothing is 100% sure, but get back to me in a million years when you crack 128bit SSL. And yes I said 1 million years, by todays hardware standards it would take much longer but as those 1 million years pass, technology will increase and lessen the time needed to brute-force.

It'd definately take a very long time to crack the encryption but saying 1 millions years is stupid, plus, SSL isn't the enrcyption algo. that's where the encryption is used 'secure socket layer', RC4, RSA and 3DES and whatnot are the actual encryption types.

n_K said,
It'd definately take a very long time to crack the encryption but saying 1 millions years is stupid, plus, SSL isn't the enrcyption algo. that's where the encryption is used 'secure socket layer', RC4, RSA and 3DES and whatnot are the actual encryption types.

Do some research on brute-force cracking 128bit, and you're right, 1 million years is stupid with todays hardware, because it would take much much longer then that to pull off.

No. of Years to crack AES with 128-bit Key = (3.4 x 1038) / [(10.51 x 1012) x 31536000]
= (0.323 x 1026)/31536000
= 1.02 x 1018
= 1 billion billion years

http://www.eetimes.com/design/...against-brute-force-attacks-

xendrome said,
I especially like

The simple fact of disabling SSL instantly decreases security...

If you guys join this site, do a little research on how Kimble sold out all of his users back in the BBS days to the feds so he didn't have to do time in prison, guy is a total dirt bag and I wouldn't trust even logging on to his site, because there is no security of you or your information once this guy gets trapped into a corner. I'm sure someone can post a link to his history..

You have no idea how MEGA works, do you ?

Sure the transfer to/ from the site with or without SSL matters, but that's not what he meant.

If you don't want to use MEGA then don't.
Looking at all your ramblings, gives me the impression of someone being paid by the MAFIAA to discourage people from using MEGA.

Then explain what he meant. Not really sure how you can dispute the statement

disabling SSL will improve performance without decreasing security.
and say it doesn't decrease security in some sense. Because from Point (A) user to Point (B) server, turning off SSL just decreased security.

Why even have a button, if it increases performance and doesn't decrease security, shouldn't it always be off?

When it's off does it say "Decreases performance but does not increase security"?

Kosh Naranek said,
If you don't want to use MEGA then don't.
Looking at all your ramblings, gives me the impression of someone being paid by the MAFIAA to discourage people from using MEGA.

MAFIAA? I'm just voicing my opinion and educated information on what crap is being spewed by Kimble.

xendrome said,
I especially like

The simple fact of disabling SSL instantly decreases security...

If you guys join this site, do a little research on how Kimble sold out all of his users back in the BBS days to the feds so he didn't have to do time in prison

It never happened, it is FUD spread by the FBI.

Umm, he's been arrested several times, and convicted of insider trading. Some of his past charges are credit card fraud, computer fraud, insider trading, embezzlement and handling stolen goods.

Brony said,

It never happened, it is FUD spread by the FBI.


Didnt know germany had an FBI.
He's done allot of **** all over the world. Not just the US.

xendrome said,
I especially like

The simple fact of disabling SSL instantly decreases security...

If you guys join this site, do a little research on how Kimble sold out all of his users back in the BBS days to the feds so he didn't have to do time in prison, guy is a total dirt bag and I wouldn't trust even logging on to his site, because there is no security of you or your information once this guy gets trapped into a corner. I'm sure someone can post a link to his history..


If you encrypt the content by other means and then disable SSL, you might indeed not lose any security.

In any example, where you have SSL enabled and then you turn off SSL, you are decreasing security. Regardless if the content is encrypted or now, once you turn off another layer, being SSL in this case, you just lost that layer,

2 - 1 = 1, not 2 - 1 = 2.

xendrome said,
In any example, where you have SSL enabled and then you turn off SSL, you are decreasing security. Regardless if the content is encrypted or now, once you turn off another layer, being SSL in this case, you just lost that layer,

2 - 1 = 1, not 2 - 1 = 2.


But 2 - 1 + 1 = 2. The option implies that either, when disabling SSL, another security layer is also added, or that he thinks that the security underneath the SSL is so powerful it cannot be broken (say it's AES-256 encrypted to begin with, would the SSL really add any more security?).

Lamp Post said,

But 2 - 1 + 1 = 2. The option implies that either, when disabling SSL, another security layer is also added, or that he thinks that the security underneath the SSL is so powerful it cannot be broken (say it's AES-256 encrypted to begin with, would the SSL really add any more security?).

Taking away the SSL still decreases the security level, yes, adding another layer of SSL onto an already encrypted data set increases it.

xendrome said,
pretty much all of this guys money has been made stealing and deceiving from other people.

You just described a good part of all the billionaires. He just did not have the right friends or the envelope he gave them was not big enough.

I hope every god damned copyrighted piece of material ever produced ends up on there. We (file sharing supporters) won with music (after refusing to buy from the old model for years I now buy it all even when I don't have to, only one song at a time). Like him or not, the way the government(s) handled this was no different than the mafia.

I don't care how much hocus-pocus you try to put in front of someone, fact is, upload and download speeds are limited by the person's internet connection doing the download or upload.

One time on my dialup connection, I tricked someone into thinking I had a turbo boost, but the file was just a few megabytes of 0's so it transferred really fast.

Umm... ok... I can easily max out a download on a 60mbit or 100mbit connection if the remote server can provide the bandwidth, I don't need "multithreading" to do so, any modern browser can handle that type of data without a problem.

Not entirely true, sure your own connection speed is a limit but there are plenty of other factors two.

Everything from the servers own connection speed to disk IO (resulting from your and a few 1000 other peoples writes) are going to come in to play. No idea what mega's plans are with this but there are plenty of things that can be done to improve performance aside from your own connection speed. For one thing most file upload sites throttle the hell out of downloads.

Have you never noticed how downloads from different site (even at the same time) can come at dramatically different speeds?

Right, my comment is assuming the server speed is sufficient, since the article speaks of "users" speeds, not servers. Kimble has enough stolen money that you'd think his servers won't be part of the issue, especially since they are supposed to be spread across different global locations

You can somewhat exceed your connection speed's maximum transfer rate by using other means to transfer the data as well by using compression.
For example, 512MB file uncompressed would takeabout 6.5 minutes on a 10Mbps line. If this was compressed to 80MB, this would take about 1 minute on an 10Mbps line. The line speed of 10Mbps is not being exceeded, but the total effective transfer rate has because at the end of the day, you have just shifted 512MB in 1 minute (

Simon- said,
You can somewhat exceed your connection speed's maximum transfer rate by using other means to transfer the data as well by using compression.
For example, 512MB file uncompressed would takeabout 6.5 minutes on a 10Mbps line. If this was compressed to 80MB, this would take about 1 minute on an 10Mbps line. The line speed of 10Mbps is not being exceeded, but the total effective transfer rate has because at the end of the day, you have just shifted 512MB in 1 minute (

LOL, you aren't exceeding anything, you are just compressing the source data, the transfer limit/cap on your line is still the same. There is no math anyone can try and throw out there that will change your ISP's caps.

I am not a tech guy at all, but if data is compressed before being sent & then decompressed on arrival it would look like it downloaded faster right? I mean, if that process happened "behind the scenes" it would look impressive, no? Especially if the download manage still labelled the file size as uncompressed.

Again I am not a tech person, so don't hurt me if it's gobbledygook.

xendrome said,
I don't care how much hocus-pocus you try to put in front of someone, fact is, upload and download speeds are limited by the person's internet connection doing the download or upload.

Most hosting limit the bandwidth used per customer. For example they could cap the connection to 1mbps x connection. The trick of some download accelerator is to fool the server creating different connection for the same server. Even Microsoft do that (excluding when they are using a fast speed service suck Akamai).

xendrome said,
I don't care how much hocus-pocus you try to put in front of someone, fact is, upload and download speeds are limited by the person's internet connection doing the download or upload.

It's not always possible to get one connection to efficiently use the maximum bandwidth available on your connection. It all depends on the server, your own connection and the route used for the connection.

In the case that you cannot use the full bandwidth on one connection, it might be possible on multiple connections.

xendrome said,

LOL, you aren't exceeding anything, you are just compressing the source data, the transfer limit/cap on your line is still the same. There is no math anyone can try and throw out there that will change your ISP's caps.


Well, even if you compress the data, that IS acceleration. The transfer finishes earlier than it would if you did not compress the data, hence you have accelerated the transfer.

Lamp Post said,

Well, even if you compress the data, that IS acceleration. The transfer finishes earlier than it would if you did not compress the data, hence you have accelerated the transfer.

Right, but compressing the data no matter how much, still does not increase your upload/download limits set by your ISP.

The original quote at the beginning of this comment thread was

You can somewhat exceed your connection speed's maximum transfer rate

And that is 100000000% false it just isn't possible, compression doesn't even factory into that discussion. It's like saying "I can throw this rock, faster then the fastest I can throw it".