I hope you guys don't do this

I do and I would set to 0 if it would work. Communism is wrong.

meant for

What's the point even?

pleb tastes

Attached: Screenshot_25.png (1151x75, 8K)

Fiction is literally for retards.

*tips fedora*

The og speed demon

>48 GB movie
lmao what an idiot, YIFY 720p is 700mb and looks good enough

I do. But I limit it to 10KiB/s.

>not setting upload speed to 0

Attached: 017.jpg (600x600, 32K)

I don't normally use bittorrent because the places I buy or download my sofware from rarely have trouble saturating my connection

0 usually means no limit in softwares like these

>that movie
>that size
Nigger what the fuck is wrong with you

Attached: WT.gif (240x228, 858K)

Brainlets not knowing how P2P works. Please kys

no i usually leave a torrent running on my seedbox until i need the space.

and its x265 webrip. nothing about it makes sense

>I hope you guys don't do this.
>needing to set a limit of 1Kb/s

It's like you don't know what DSL is

>have a gigabit line
>most torrents download at around 70-80MB/s, router won't do more
>leave upload unlimited in thd client
>keep seeding
>no one ever downloads anything from me
I wonderif there's some firewall setting I'm missing. Oh well...

>Seed forever
>Nobody is downloading

Torrents are dead. Everyone is using SJWyroll

Attached: seed.png (214x720, 25K)

I prefer it that way
I'd rather die than go to heaven

I don't I just use DDL filehosts so I never have to do any uploading.

>Jordan the faggot calling people out on tastes
>LOOK AT ME GUIZE I RAN AWAY FROM HOME IM LIVING IN A CAVE ;___________; GUIZE PLZ

Attached: stats.png (268x101, 3K)

I don't, I set it to 0kbps.

Is there something wrong with Lawrence of Arabia?

>doctor Zhivago
Kino taste

I assume it's the size. It's probably just some encode with pointlessly high bitrate which the source quality does not warrant at all.

I am so so sorry,

>plz wait 3600 seconds for the rest of this post

No.

Where do you get your torrents?

i set it to 0 for my home connection
my upload is so shit that the overhead of downloading uses most of the upload bandwidth alone
i don't think anyone would want me taking up a download slot in their client

it doesn't with transmission, it just doesn't upload at all

Attached: a.png (317x135, 8K)

>downloading the separate harry potter movies
Just get the collection. Has more seeders.

actually DDL piracy is much better than torrenting in almost every wa-
>this post is 98% complete and has 0 seeders
>also if you get one more copyright strike for torrenting, your ISP will disable your interent access
>please pay an extra $5/month for a VPN to ensure you don't get caught torrenting again

Get your eyes checked

>>also if you get one more copyright strike for torrenting, your ISP will disable your interent access

Only download anime and movies that are 25+ years old.

>>this post is 98% complete and has 0 seeders

Has only happened to me once. Better than 404 download links.

Tigole releases of Harry potter is great quality..

although its hevc reencode. 8-11gb is enough for my shit speed

actually all modern DDL link sites have link checkers that automatically remove dead links. I haven't seen a dead link in years.

>also if you get one more copyright strike for torrenting, your ISP will disable your interent access
>Only download anime and movies that are 25+ years old.

how's life in a police state?

It's probably going to be like that everywhere except africa and non-japan asia in a couple of years.

>how's life in a police state?

I don't care for lgbttpiqq2saa+communism*feminism^Islamic nigger propaganda movies coming out now.

Why would I? I legitimately don't understand why people do this.

get a 15Mbps/800Kbps connection and see how well you can upload on it

the Angry Birds movie is pretty based and redpilled but if you torrent it disney will send copyright letters

>post.97.rar complete
>error downloading post.98.rar, remote file was deleted by the uploader of site maintainer

>download post.98.rar from one of the dozen interchangeable mirrors

V: 10
A: 10

I legitimately had 7Mbps/700Kbps from 1997 up to 2011 and maintained 800kbps down and 80kbps up for p2p connections. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. As if speed matters at all in a cumulative segmented download system. Anything more than 0 contributes to the total speed of the swarm, that's the entire point of the swarm concept.

Attached: before fast path.png (300x135, 32K)

of the same era, from my archives

Attached: uploaded.old.png (69x706, 7K)

i seed old/near-dead torrents, but for popular stuff, my drop in the bucket would just annoy people
that and the download overhead takes half the upload alone, and i have other people in this house who use the connection, too (all at different times, there's no regular period i can upload without someone else wanting to use it)

>but for popular stuff, my drop in the bucket would just annoy people
That's not how it works, again, it's cumulative.
100 peers uploading at 1kbps is still 100kbs cumulative. That's the whole benefit to this approach.

>i have other people in this house who use the connection, too (all at different times, there's no regular period i can upload without someone else wanting to use it)
This is a valid excuse I can understand.

Attached: 2013 bandwidth used.png (1453x769, 66K)

>scene shit
lmao

>100 peers uploading at 1kbps is still 100kbs cumulative. That's the whole benefit to this approach.
i understand that, maybe it different for people who can let their clients connect to 100's of peers, i keep my connection count very low so as to keep latency down for other applications, it's tricky having torrents running 24/7 while other people are playing online games, watching youtube, and shitposting on Jow Forums, all at the same time, on a

lawrence of arabia is shot in 70mm analog camera, so it’s originally way higher than 4k when remastered accordingly. hence the huge bitrate AND godlike picture quality. I will post a screencap from it when I get home and you will notice.

i believe it, some of my sharpest movies are 20+ year old film transfers

If you want to go even deeper, you don't even need a high connection count for it to matter. In theory, your peerlist should always have the closest and fastest peers available in the open peerlist.

If you're uploading to someone, it can only mean you're either 1) the closest/fastest, 2) one of few or the sole provider (that they can connect to) 3) they manually connected to you specifically to ruin my examples.

In any case I already see your point. I'm just explaining the workings of the system because I really appreciate them. While it's not perfect, it's pretty close to it for the current time. It may as well have been magic when it came out even if the concepts were not all original, they were all coupled together to form something really efficient and resilient.

I'm looking forward to the next generation in this area as well.

alright, so annoying people is probably not very likely then, since if i show up it's because they have nobody better to connect to, wasn't sure if it was smart enough for that, my understanding was that it was basically random, then made decisions based on observed speed whether or not to kick peers and try others
>I'm looking forward to the next generation in this area as well.
i'm hoping IPFS can be used for file sharing, it has several advantages over bittorrent, the biggest imo is the fact that it's naturally deduplicated, being content-addressed, the same file always has the same address, so even if it shows up with different names, or in folders of other files, it shares the same peers. no more 50 different torrents that all contain the same file, but you can't mix peers because the file was chunked differently

>alright, so annoying people is probably not very likely then, since if i show up it's because they have nobody better to connect to, wasn't sure if it was smart enough for that, my understanding was that it was basically random, then made decisions based on observed speed whether or not to kick peers and try others
At the end of the day, it's client specific, even if there is a standard to follow (I don't remember).
It must be based around the state of the DHT initially, and then maybe they aggregate and test for better connections. But thar's just for choosing the starting peers anyway, in theory a client should work out an optimal strategy over the course of the transfer.

>IPFS
This is what I was thinking of specifically myself. It really looks like it's going to be better in every way. For some people, the features that are implemented now are good enough. I already see people using IPFS hashes on other imageboards for easy sharing.

What you said is probably the biggest one. I am more than sick of grabbing duplicate torrents just to find out which one is actually still (partially)alive. Some clients like Vuze have "swarm merging" which almost solves this, but it still has to share traits with the original torrent, like chunk size. So it doesn't cover everything, it doesn't even cover most things. And most importantly, it's not a standard feature.

The fact that IPFS can handle this across hashes globally is enough, but then you consider that they plan to handle fetching of blocks from multiple networks at the same time.
So when it's finished, you could download a file over a combination of IPFS, BT, and other protocols/formats, each in themselves with these benefits (multi swarm, multie peer). All under the same standard interfaces (same user tools, but also standard hashes).

There's no reason transferring data from A to B should be so fragile, and it looks like they're working on eliminating this as sanely (for users at least) as possible.

>Using qbittorrent
>Option to pause finished torrents once they reach a specified ratio
>Set ratio to 0

Attached: 50a.jpg (470x595, 201K)

In public trackers I do it that way because being a seedcuck for unencrypted uTorrent niggers is fucking gay. If I were part of a proper private tracker I'd seed.

i dont need to do that when my ISP already does it for me

Attached: 2018-09-07-071817_1024x768_scrot.png (806x134, 22K)

My upside speed for my entire internet is 1.5mbs. if I had decent upload I'd seed but it just ain't possible. I have the best internet available at my address.

the biggest blocker for me right now that stops be throwing everything on IPFS is the fact it doesn't yet support serving files without copying them to it's special block cache, at least last i checked
once it's possible to share things in-place, i'll probably just through all my non-personal files on it, because why not? i don't need to worry about what i've renamed them to or which folder they're in, nor do i have to share torrents/links for people to 'find' them, since they will share addresses with other identical files
can you imagine if a bunch of hoarders did that? no more "i know /someone/ has this, but which swarm are they on?". a single swarm/namespace has always made sense, it just needed someone to figure out how to make something that scales well enough for it to actually work

Of course I do. I want to download files, not be the cuck that everyone downloads from.

Don't mind at all - you're a tiny little bacterium in a pond the size of the Pacific.

Hell doesn't exist - just like your IQ's third digit.

ooh, soon(tm) it seems
github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/blob/master/docs/experimental-features.md#ipfs-filestore

>x265
>4k
>48GB

>a 2 hour x264 1080p movie is 2GB
by that rule your file should be 16GB tops if it was x264
how

This and blocking all seeding connections to double secure it. It's called PIRACY after all, so act like one.

nope

Attached: 900mbps upload.jpg (767x51, 20K)

Someone on 8/v/ was talking about writable mount support. You can already mount IPFS as read only, but this would allow you to write to MFS which is basically just a normal hierarchy filesystem but instead of inodes it uses ipfs hashes.
When/if this is done, I'll have no reason not to move my public data over to it.

>once it's possible to share things in-place
Last I checked you can but it was half baked then. That was years ago though so I don't know how it is now. But you could add files via location and it wouldn't duplicate them. Look for "nocopy add" if you want to check up on it.

>can you imagine if a bunch of hoarders did that?
There's a program called the Hydrus Network that is a local by default, tag based, media index, with online features for syncing and searching tag databases as well as actually sharing media data itself. It has basic IPFS support but I think the long term goal is to improve this when IPFS is out of alpha.

They basically have everything already in place since before IPFS existed they were referencing data via SHA256, so it's literally just a matter of swapping out the hash type and you suddenly have network wide data pointers by virtu of content addressed hashes. So you could search a tag like on a booru, and the results could be fetched via ipfs.

When this happens I probably won't leave my house for days as I'll have access to a well tagged global collection of images.

>When this happens I probably won't leave my house for days as I'll have access to a well tagged global collection of images.
deduplication of effort applies to a lot of applications
client/server models for public data seems like a positively archaic idea compared to IPFS

Truly unlimited internet now so don't give a fuck (living in Korea). In the past I'd throttle during the day but not at night, since I had unmetered overnight 2am to 8am iirc).

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-09-07 at 22.36.31.png (1308x834, 180K)

I always do that and I delete every torrent instantly after the download has finished.

>360 kB
kek

no, people literally rioted when the government tried to shit down torrents

i'd probably join the riot if the government unleashed a torrent of shit as well

>what is bitrate
>10-bit colors
>what is movie length (lawrence is almost 4 hours)

OP here with snapshots from Lawrence of Arabia (1962), each snapshot was like ~12MB so here you go:

ibb (antispam) co/hkPyue
ibb (antispam) co/m8pL7z
ibb (antispam) co/n65hLK

So this is the power of 70mm analog film when remastered to 4K (and I'm sure we will see 8K remasters in the future as long as the film exists)

If you think a 2 hour movie in x264 is 2GB, you're either retarded or a troll.

Here are all 3 lord of the rings extended edition blurays.

~65GB per movie. A proper encode could lower this down to about 20GB per movie, but less than that would have some picture quality trade offs I wouldn't personally be okay with.

Attached: 2018-09-07 10_06_07.png (2354x278, 58K)

meant for

Remember when you were in college and asked Jow Forums for advice on how to trim / shape your neckbeard because your parents were coming to visit and you wanted to look somewhat presentable, and then you fucked it up (just like everything else in your life)? I remember, I still have the picture saved on another computer.

Attached: lolkek.jpg (520x560, 26K)

Haha, of course not OP.

Attached: Screenshot_20180907_161834.png (805x186, 12K)

>70 GB "the bridge on the river kwai"
what are you even

Well I found a good deal on a quality OLED 4K tv that doesn't have burn-in (yet) so I'm enjoying it before burn-in happens along with 7.1 home theatre system. It REALLY makes difference.

looks right to me

Attached: 2018-09-07 10_23_31.png (920x178, 41K)

What does a movie like that even benefit from this? The cameras it was shot with had ridiculously small resolution compared to your 4K.

no wimen

Well, quality analog cameras record much more information than digital ones, especially when the film size used is >35mm. So they can be remastered again and again over the years. That's why newer films have much shittier remaster quality.

Couldn't care less.
My Internet has enough bandwidth for download and upload has has no data cap like burgers have.