So utorrent is deprecated, QB is shit, deluge works like shit on windows...

It's not a meme, it's the only client I have seen have problems with speeds and stalling. Most of the time, autism about torrent clients is something one should ignore, it literally makes no difference what client you use except in very specific scenarios for which you probably should have rtorrent set up anyway. But QStallTorrents is one bad piece of shit that should never be used.

qbit has a 'stalled' status for torrents that it's trying to download, but cannot due to whatever reason (no peers 99.9% of the time). For some reason, people think every other client has the same status and it just never comes up or something. So yeah, it's a meme.

The issue is that qB will be in that status when another client can happily download. You wouldn't notice this unless you're actively auditing it or you have so many years of experience torrenting that you notice after the switch that you now seem to be running into a suspiciously large number of "dead" torrents.

isn't torrent just deprecated? I thought people were using usenet or mega links to download shit. I heard some guys are doing something with blockchain

>usenet
>2019

I run deluge on a linux server and remote connect to it on my windows desktop using the client/webui

best thing ever

Wtf lmao
I hope you're joking

No. It's still the best torrent client by far.
I don't think anyone's put much effort in making a different one since there's really no need for another.

People will probably migrate to IPFS in a few years but for right now, torrents are still the widest form of P2P for this kind of thing.

Ahahahahahhahahahahahahhaha

ktorrent

Why do people who use proprietary software think they're entitled to anything?
The only responses to this thread should be `install gentoo' and various assertions regarding OP's sexual orientation.

Get a job and let's see how long you can function without proprietary software.

That's retarded, it brings no practical improvement for file sharing compared to torrents and it's node structure is something you would have to be an absolute madman to allow on your IP.

>QB is shit,
Works for me

>it brings no practical improvement for file sharing compared to torrents
That's wrong. The modularity of the components in the specifications alone are enough to convince me. If any component is arguably weak, it can always just be swapped out.

Remember how we got here, through various P2P protocols, clients, and extensions.
Which all used their own special URN, and other weird shit.
Even if something new came out and was better, migrating was a pain in the ass, for the user.

You could (and eventually will be able to) use Bittorrent as an exchange method through an IPFS implementation, but you would use the exact same implementation you use today, and the inputs are still just multihashes.
The only people that have to do work are the IPFS developers.
Not the user, not the client developers.
As long as you keep updating builds, in theory, the "exchange" layer would just automatically use the latest and greatest protocol, regardless of what it is.

The best part though is that exchange is just a singler layer. IPFS is trying to compete with HTTP, which brings in real time dynamic data possabilities, as well as IPLD which lets you traverse all these networks and standards easily.

It only makes sense why browsers and service providers have adopted this shit. Once it hits stable it's only going to rise in popularity out of sheer convenience and availability.
It's supported everywhere, and it relies on being supported everywhere (P2P network with seeders) to be fast.

Attached: layers.png (544x400, 126K)

>this

I know it's shit, but why deprecated.

tixati; imo. i never see anyone using it; but it's absolutely wonderful.

Like look at this shit.
I'm tired of migrating clients for P2P applications.
TCP IP works fine when I migrate machines and operating systems, and programs, etc. why shouldn't applications be able to work with decentralized connections and peers in the same way they do with HTTP, domains, and IP addresses?

This is a solved problem as of decades ago. And all these technologies existing independently seem to prove it. IPFS is just a wrapper around all of them, presenting a standard interface to work with.
In the same way you don't have to think about if someone is using WIFI or Ethernet or whatever else. You shouldn't have to think about where their server is located for peers, or where the content is stored in a hierarchy for data.

It's better in every possible context.
Even in the case of file transfers since automatic swarm merging is a big plus. P2P transfers depend on someone hosting data.

>you would have to be an absolute madman to allow on your IP
You can use tor natively with it today.
There's going to be i2P integration at some point which is pretty damn proven for anonymous p2p routing. And at worst you'd have to toggle a config flag to enable that, unless they make it the default.

I can't see much ways for this to get better and easier for everyone.

Attached: 1 qNZwhkmhcqXyRVpFJ1qG5A.jpg (1920x1008, 323K)

No. Like I said, it has no practical improvements over torrents, it is torrenting with a node system instead of peers, it is effectively torrenting tied to their other retarded project Filecoin.

If you think a filesharing network that rewards people with buttcoins for sharing is ever gonna take over BitTorrent, that's fine, I'll stick to reality and see Protocol Labs for what it is.Also you should read up on Protocol Labs, but I suspect you are one of the devs shilling so probably not.

>depend on someone hosting data.

So does anything shared over IFPS, stop shilling your retarded product.

what's the point of ipfs? i don't get why i would even use it. torrents work perfectly well; and it seems fucking convoluted.

>a node system instead of peers
What are you talking about, those 2 terms are synonymous.

>it is effectively torrenting tied to their other retarded project Filecoin
That makes no sense whatsoever. Filecoin isn't even released yet. IPFS works just fine without it today and has for years already.
From what I can tell Filecoin is just a P2P AWS competitor, or a CDN competitor.
It just lets you spend money to buy storage time from anyone. Which people obviously do today if AWS and CDNs exist.

>If you think a filesharing network that rewards people with buttcoins for sharing is ever gonna take over BitTorrent, that's fine
I've been running it for a while now and I don't get anything for it. What are you talking about?

You upload data because you want to share the data, there's no reward, and it's not a "blockchain". You don't mine it.
It's literally just "add data" and "get data".
No coins involved.

>you should read up on Protocol Labs
Why not just tell everyone here instead? What am I supposed to look for.

Specs are specs, you don't even have to use their implementations, justl ike you don't have to use Bitorrent Inc.'s clients either. Who I very much don't trust but obviously use bitorrent the protocol.

I didn't say otherwise. IPFS is a P2P protocol, which is in that sentence you quoted.
>P2P transfers depend on someone hosting data.
Why are you being so defensive in a thread about the topic? Someone asked about it and I'm replying.

The point is to replace HTTP.
HTTP sucks ass because it's centralized by default and content is addressed by location.
Distribution, load balancing, and other annoying shit is left up to service hosters to manage and usually costs them a lot of money to have maintainers and providers.

In reality it doesn't have to be this complicated or expensive.
Bittorrent proves this easily.
Magnet links do not change, if you publish something now and delete the contents, as long as someone has them, you can get them.

HTTP is not like this without complex bullshit around it.
It's really stupid that your home machine can handle this in a single program, but website providers spend hundreds of dollars on this to multiple parties to get the same features.

Bittorrent isn't perfect either, things like swarm merging are client dependent, and should be automated in the first place. The only one I even know that does this is Vuze and that's through a plugin. That's stupid.
If someone renames a file, it's still the same data, it shouldn't be a whole different magnet/swarm.
It's not as resilient or fast as it could be as a result. IPFS currently has this advantage built in.

Best advantage of IPFS right here.
Use it with existing programs.

Also, to the one user, I'm sorry if talking about P2P protocols and the future of them in a P2P thread on a technology board hosted on a nepolanese chopstick carving bbs , makes you angry. But what the fuck else are we supposed to talk about and where?
I'm not going to their github page and going
>Anyone else here really looking forward to using this software to pirate japanese cartoons? I am and really hope the MPAA don't shut this thing down.

Attached: ipfs mpv.resize.webm (1440x810, 2.89M)

Wait... Why is QB shit? I've never heard Jow Forumsentoomen complain about it before.
I've used it for months after leaving Transmission and am enjoying many of its unique features.
What am I missing?

Attached: 1542741586741.png (500x500, 106K)

rtorrent+flood

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-12-09 09-39-32.png (3748x2120, 294K)

Bad peering
Terrible default behavior. (resume download without permission if files are missing or corrupt)
Suboptimal dealing with spillover piece data when partial downloading. (makes a valid looking unwanted files that are mostly empty instead of a partfile like uTorrent.
And just buggy as hell.

the stalled meme isnt about failing to download, its about failing to seed.
qbit downloads just as well as any other client, but if you care at all about your ratio, it isnt the client for you.

transmission also uses the "stalled" staus to describe a torrent that wont download due to no peers, but no one accuses it of stalling because you are able to seed your completed torrents just fine.

I'm a little surprised people use rtorrent given the lack of features outside of the standard.
No ipv6, no utp, no sequential downloading.

I use ktorrent on OpenBSD.

>deluge works like shit on windows
Then don't use Windows. But I use Transmission on GNU/Linux.

Use btpd.

>qbittorrent is shit
are you retarded or trolling?

>qBT is shit
Are you retarded? It works just fine and has a ton of convenient features.

> transmission development goes at a patch per 3 years
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

What does it even do that other clients don't?
It doesn't seem as special as people make it out to be.

It's about download peering as well, it just isn't quite as impactful since there are generally multiple seeds.

I use aria2 you faggot.

wheres my picotorrent niggers? y'all enjoying the non bloated client? I sure as hell am.

uTorrent 2.2.1 is 391k and has more features.

Built-in search engine. Sequential download.

torrenting is dead

Do you still have to select sequential downloading manually for every torrent?
uTorrent 2.2.1 can set it globally. (to be fair, it can ONLY set it globally and has no option on a per-torrent basis)

How come every time someone mentions qb the word 'stalled' gets tossed out. I haven't seen that for more than 10 years and I download torrents almost daily. If you add shit with no seeds then it's your fault, the program works fine. Add a bad torrent with any client and the result will be the same.

Post stats.

>uTorrent after 1.6.1
>using a botnet
Any uTorrent after 1.6.1 is a botnet that phones home and reports all your shit. This has been known forever.

qBittorrent is great, not sure how people have issues with it. I put all my private tracker torrents on it and runs like a champ.

qbittorrent is just fine, been using it for years and it does exactly what I need it to, not sure why Jow Forums shits on it so much.

>simple
>works
>no ads
>open source

Post stats.

Attached: Capture.png (1476x1002, 105K)

Has literally never happened for me. Been using it for years

You still on 3.3.16 or so? Since I'm calling bullshit if you went through 4.0 without a crash.

I've updated every time it said there was an update

Post stats.

Not that user but here are stats.
Low uptime though so not much.

Attached: autism.png (1624x1011, 125K)

I wish I had your connection. My client seems better at using it, though.

Attached: Capture.png (1549x377, 30K)

>My client seems better at using it, though.
I've pushed and pulled 40MB/s which is about as fast as my NAS mount can manage.
Come to think of it, I should run it on that machine.

Attached: fast.png (1503x78, 18K)

I'm not sure if Transmission is abandonware but it still works as well as ever.

Yeah, that connection is 40 times as fast as mine.

Attached: Untitled.png (492x429, 13K)

qBittorrent works perfectly as long as you're downloading torrents with more than a single seed and your internet connection is not 128kbps.