P2P file sharing

Do you seed your torrents, user?

Attached: BE6E3BF6-B0A7-4937-A8FE-F8D190B76FCF.png (1200x1200, 135K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mg8.org/processing/bt.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

most i seed is to 0.5

to 2.0 on public trackers, forever on privates

no because I live in America and our up speed is too shit to ever warrant seeding.if I had fiber I would

i bet you're the type of person who tries to count calories, but snacks throughout the day and doesn't log it because "it's too small to count"

American here. Works on my machine.

Attached: file.png (1243x115, 5K)

>american
stopped reading there

What are you telling me for?

if it's a dead torrent i might keep around till 1.0 ratio, but most of the stuff i torrent (weebshit) have enough seeders as it is.

I don't count calories because I'm not overweight and exercise routinely.

Some states have actual fiber. A bunch don't. I'm not going to have my up bandwidth raided on

I uploaded at 70kb/s until 2012, you're making bad excuses.

If it's poorly seeded and I liked it, sure. I don't really use private trackers.

Attached: 1379444873061.png (772x742, 391K)

You may as well not even seed with something that slow. If I'm going to seed I'm going to make sure the person can finish in a reasonable time frame.

kbs, not kBs?

S T A L L E D

do you even know how torrents work
it's impossible to hurt the swarm by seeding

I seed like 9 TB a month (only had this machine since last september).

Attached: file.png (402x205, 15K)

You obviously don't understand how segmented downloading works.
10 people seeding at 50kb/s is still a swarm speed of 500kb/s

mg8.org/processing/bt.html

Whatever unit uTorrent measured in, I never remember how bandwidth is measured compared to storage.
My n

Attached: 2078532716.png (300x135, 32K)

I said nothing about 'hurting the swarm'. I said it's a waste of time seeding with such low speed.

That's assuming it has 10 people seeding. Unpopular torrents will have 1-2 seeds max.

I only get around 120KiB/s up, and I don't see it as a problem. If they get other seeders to join, they'll finish sooner, but they're assured completion if they wait anyhow. Sometimes the only other seeder I see is active for like an hour a day. If it's the only way you'll get the thing you're torrenting, you're grateful for any decent speed.

Acting as if a slow download is better than no download, and fully undermining the entire purpose regardless of the count, is still a stupid excuse. n+1 will always be higher and faster than n.
This sounds like you're trying to justify it to yourself. Does this sound reasonable?
>I'm not going to contribute to the speed because it's slow

I didn't say it was a problem. I said it personally is a waste of time for me if I'm the only seeder giving people dial-up tier speeds.

>If it's the only way you'll get the thing you're torrenting, you're grateful for any decent speed.
There are always multiple ways to get something. If you want to wait potentially days to pirate something, sure. I'd rather just buy whatever it is I need, since I'm an adult with money.

>if I'm the only seeder giving people dial-up tier speeds
Acting as if transfers are some kind of human active task. My computer is going to be on and connected regardless. If I'm requesting the content, I obviously want it. If I'm requesting it through those means then I obviously couldn't find it elsewhere.

I really doubt your sincerity especially since you're resorting to justifying your actions by saying "I'm an adult". As if that changes anything.

You don't seem to understand the technology, you don't seem to understand user intent, and possibly not how computers work in general.
I still believe you're only trying to convince yourself. Which is really strange for the reason already mentioned, it's not like uploading costs you any effort.

Attached: wew.png (448x565, 43K)

1.1

Downloading something in a week is still better than not downloading it at all. I had one torrent take more than a year to download because it had a single seed with a slow connection who was rarely online, now it has a ratio above 60 in my torrent client.

>I said it's a waste of time seeding with such low speed.
Yeah it's not like modern operating systems support multitasking.

>Unpopular torrents will have 1-2 seeds max.
The number of seeds is visible on torrent sites so if a user chooses an unpopular torrent, they do it for a reason.

>I'd rather just buy whatever it is I need, since I'm an adult with money.
I didn't know adults liked paying money for things they can't actually own.

We'll agree to disagree, then. If there is no rush to get the thing in question, a week is fine really. There might be multiple ways, but they aren't guaranteed and they might not be agreeable. The alternatives might mean ordering the DVD and waiting for it to ship, if you can actually buy it that is. Or joining a private tracker. Do you really want that old, unpopular JAV right now?

Reminder that dial up speeds used to be the only option anyway and people still did it.

post your gay shit

Attached: gay shit.png (546x340, 32K)

Forever because I only download anime and sadpanda

You can't seed anything if you're using a client notorious for stalling.

rare shit and shit that took me weeks to get at 5KB/s, yes

Attached: 1542326353208.png (169x456, 3K)

Just force it lol

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-16 qBittorrent v4 1 5 Web UI.png (200x24, 1K)

I try to, but I don't torrent that much

Attached: Untitled.png (302x440, 10K)

l-lewd

Attached: 1445012368096.png (500x250, 5K)

What is the best torrent client? Using qBittorrent since 3 years or more but right now, I am trying to download DMC5 FitGirl repack and it does not start at all. Put the torrent in Deluge and it's downloading normally... Is there any fix to qBittorrent or what is the best client available? Also qBittorrent might be behaving this way because I set it up to work only with VPN and maybe its a bit buggy

BiglyBT can not be beat.

>BiglyBT
Could you please elaborate?

a fork of Vuze which nobody needs because Java sucks balls.

Yes, which is why I don't use qB.

If you have anything greater than dial-up, your bandwidth is welcome. I've downloaded entire Blu-rays at 25KB/s while praying that that last lone seeder keeps it going. Yes it takes months, but that is worlds better than "not at all." It's not like any of this content is time sensitive.

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

>every client that exists is either proprietary
>has 0 features on top of wrapping libtorrent
>straight up doesn't work
>or can't scale
>nobody needs
The only thing we don't need is C++ client #500 which can't even do the one thing it's supposed to.
Deluge and qBittorrent are notorious for not even being able to parse torrent files themselves in the exact way that person is talking about.

>but Java!
I bet you couldn't even list valid criticisms of Java, as if they're relevant anyway. Are you contributing to the client?

Fucking idiots reinventing things when Azureus is older than they are. It's stable as can be, performant, customizable, and extensible/modular.
Literally what more could you ask for when the competition is immature, buggy, and doesn't even support standards that have existed forever.
The state of other clients is a fucking embarrassment and things like qbittorrent should have been mercy killed by now.

No.

Bakky Collection, nice

Attached: notlewds.png (1156x310, 100K)

>JAV style code
>3.6GB
Pedophiles have come a long way.

I think it's horrible how bittorrent never caught on outside of pirating and how pirating has slandered bittorrent so heavily. I think websites should function on a bittorrent-type protocol, like instead of downloading all of the text and images from Jow Forums's servers, we should be searching the new text and images amongst each other via bittorrent. I have to imagine that it would make Jow Forums basically free to host.

>"WHAT INCENTIVE DO I HAVE TO SEED THIS WEBSITE WITH YOU FAGGOTS?"
I'm sure you could choose to set your upload settings to 0KB/s with no repercussions, but I think the seeder who like Jow Forums and want to keep it going would outweigh the leechers

Mozilla has been pushing for "dweb"(distributed web) standards.
Major browsers already have IPFS whitelisted as a protocol in dev branches. I think Brave has native support already.
Within 5 years I bet it will be common at least for individuals to be hosting whatever using it.

The latency would kill you. Even with a good client it can take several minutes to connect to some peers, and some peers can't directly connect to each other at all.
(It's funny when two Chinese need me to bridge them from the other side of the world since I've got both IPv4 and v6.

It's not like you have to bootstrap a dht for every request. Maybe initially it would take a minute to connect, but as long as you have a persistant understanding of the DHT then it's no different than going through typical CDN bouncers/balancers etc.

Pointing at IPFS again, they already work this way. You run a daemon at the system level or a service worker in the browser and your browser interacts with an api. It's fast already and it's still in alpha. It's only been getting faster.

Generally seed to 2.0 on public torrents, more on smaller, older, or niche torrents. 100/100mbit helps

Attached: 2019-03-16 10_55_28-Statistics.png (283x398, 9K)

and nobody uses it. why? because Java is bloat as fuck and slow compared to the competition. nobody cares about your snowflake client when qBittorent, Deluge, rTorrent and Transmission just werks.

>Fucking idiots reinventing things when Azureus is older than they are
Fucking idiots reinventing things when uTorrent/BitCommet/Bittorrent Mainline/TorrentFlux etc. is older than they are. no reason to got with Vuze when your only argument is old == good

tixati

>slow
Maxes my network and disks just fine. Not sure what you're talking about.
>only argument
Again, not sure what you're talking about. The other person is making the same common complaint of failure to parse a torrent file. That's 1 out of 2 of the bare requirements of a torrent client and it can't do it properly.
qBittorrent is notorious for stalling, either because of poor disk IO and/or poor network management.
So much for performance and maturity when it can't even come up with good piece caching strategies or punch through NAT.

When it comes to software, age matters. Every issue you could have with the project has already been found and fixed. Again these younger clients, built on modern languages and technologies are failing to implement even the basics properly.

You want to talk about poor performance and wasted memory, Deluge is written in Python.

I still think you don't know what you're talking about at all. Nice try though, nobody is installing your proprietary or broken shitware.

>qBittorrent apologist talking about snowflake and lack of installs
Hilarious.

>not on a private tracker
wew

What?

Well you're clearly not a programmer.

>all programmers must be proficient in p2p technologies
Come on now.

>Maxes my network and disks just fine.
maxes my network, disks, ram & cpu just fine
fixed this for you

Saying something doesn't make it true. I'm sorry you have this preconceived notion that is preventing you from using something legitimately good, but you're not convincing anyone but yourself.

>Saying something doesn't make it true
did you realise this after reading your own post?

If it's not obvious, I use the client so I have first hand experience with it as well as the rest of them. If you think you're going to convince me that the client is somehow broken after I've been using it without issues while encountering issues first hand with other clients, you're wasting your time.
Again, it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about and are trying to convince yourself for one reason or another.

Now it seems like you're just goading for attention, which I'm not really interested in humoring. If you're that desperate, it's probably for a reason.