Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#201

Post by 6510 »

A fun idea I had was to divide hd video over 4 and/or 16 and/or 64 lower resolution videos. For the 1/4 the pixels from video 1,2,3 and 4 would be arranged like so.

   1 2 1 2
   3 4 3 4
   1 2 1 2
   3 4 3 4
You could for example consume a HD stream then distribute [say] only 3 lower resolution streams. If the connection craps out or your graphics processing cant keep up you don't have to skip frames but can gradually degrade the image. There could be different frame rates too as long as they combine to something sensible.

If you have [say] a 640 MB recording at 120 fps you would only need to successfully receive 2.5 MB at 30 fps to be able to watch the entire thing. With a slight delay in playback you could even hop from one sub set of channels to another.

It should work offline too. One could have the cutting edge crispy resolution on a large display or watch the same on a crappy old laptop. (and everything in between)

For fun I one time convert a 3.5 hour lecture to 75 MB and was stunned by how watchable it still was.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#202

Post by bawolff »

apitman wrote: post #199
bawolff wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you implement p2p without the p2p part.

My point is you could for example choose not to use very much (or any) extra upload bandwidth without getting user consent first.

That's like saying you can choose not to run a website. Like yes, you certainly could choose to do that, but not if you're planning to run a p2p based streaming website.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#203

Post by throwaway920102 »

martinald wrote: post #128

The real reason is that bandwidth is dirt cheap, if you know what are you are doing at scale. For 'hobbyists' there is a lot of complexity with setting up your own streaming infrastructure compared to just using YouTube or Twitch. Then for media companies who want to own it, they can just buy their own infra and networking which is outrageously cheap. HE.net advertises 40gbit/sec of transit for $2200/month. I'm overs…

This sounds like fodder for a really interesting blog post tbh. I would read it.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#204

Post by amy_petrik »

bavell wrote: post #155
arghwhat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comments on why bittorrent as is isn't used for live streaming, not why P2P shouldn't be used for live streaming > Latency matters. In bit torrent if the peer goes away, no big deal, just try again in 5 minutes with another peer, you are downloading in random order, who cares if one piecs is delayed 5 minutes. In a live stream your app is broken if it cuts out for 5 minutes. First of all, BitTorrent clients do n…

> First of all, BitTorrent clients do not download in random order or wait 5 minutes. They usually download the rarest block first, but can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The problem here is that BT works so well because the clients default to "good behavior" (prioritize rare pieces first) and discourages "bad behavior" (leeching/no upload). This tilts the balance on the whole enough to maintain the healt…

>This tilts the balance on the whole enough to maintain the health of the network. If you change these, you'd need to introduce other mechanisms to preserve the network incentives.

This is the real key point here. In the P2P wars, only bittorrent was the winner (though the old networks still live on and you can find interesting stuff in them...) - the timeless lesson is leeches need to be getting the short end of the stick, people who give back, the prize bonus. It's a fundamental characteristic of human nature here, tragedy of the common leech or something like that

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#205

Post by duskwuff »

lordnacho wrote: post #88
jack_pp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what if everyone agrees on a 10s delay?

For pseudo-live streams such as sports events, that would be totally fine. People can have slightly out of sync streams, delayed by various amounts. But you can't live stream a conversation with someone if you have a 10s delay.

Latency is actually a pretty big deal for live sports events.

No one wants to hear the cheering start at the neighbor's house ten seconds before you get to see the team score a goal.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#206

Post by hamiecod »

googlryas wrote: post #185
apitman wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up a good point. It's interesting that YouTube at least doesn't do p2p for their non-DRM content.

Sounds like a recipe for dissatisfied users "Why's my internet slow? Oh, YouTube is uploading a bunch of stuff to other people" "How did I hit my bandwidth cap for the month already? Oh, youtube is..."

But bandwidth is extremely cheap in 2025 to the point that I do not even check my bandwidth usage and I have never reached my 2TB/month bandwidth cap in the last 3 years.

Secondly, the p2p system will be advantageous for the videos that most people watch, i.e., popular videos. This implies that the "popular" video will have a large number of concurrent users who are transmitting a small part of video to just 3 other peers who are then transmitting the same part to 3 other peers.

This way, the bandwidth usage for uploading is reduced.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#207

Post by chyueli »

Share 3 methods:

1. Hybrid architecture (CDN+P2P): - Use CDN to process backbone traffic, and edge nodes distribute through P2P to reduce the pressure on the central server (such as LivePeer trying to combine blockchain and P2P). - Platforms such as Youku have experimented with such solutions, but they need to weigh the cost and effect.

2. Protocol optimization: - Sliced transmission: Divide the streaming media into small pieces and improve efficiency through multi-path transmission. - Dynamic priority: Dynamically adjust the data allocation strategy according to node bandwidth and latency. - Buffering and preloading: Allow users to tolerate higher latency in exchange for more stable transmission (such as HLS/DASH protocol ideas).

3. Decentralized network exploration: - Projects such as IPFS and BitTorrent Live have tried real-time streaming, but are limited by technical maturity and ecological support. - Web3 projects (such as Theta Network) combine token incentives to encourage nodes to contribute bandwidth, which may promote development.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#208

Post by fragmede »

amy_petrik wrote: post #204
bavell wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, BitTorrent clients do not download in random order or wait 5 minutes. They usually download the rarest block first, but can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The problem here is that BT works so well because the clients default to "good behavior" (prioritize rare pieces first) and discourages "bad behavior" (leeching/no upload). This tilts the balance on the whole enough to maintain the healt…

>This tilts the balance on the whole enough to maintain the health of the network. If you change these, you'd need to introduce other mechanisms to preserve the network incentives. This is the real key point here. In the P2P wars, only bittorrent was the winner (though the old networks still live on and you can find interesting stuff in them...) - the timeless lesson is leeches need to be getting the short end of the…

ish? it's pretty stupid that in the age of seedboxes with gigabit we still prioritize that. The only way to be a seed these days is to get the release microseconds after it gets released, and download it before everyone else gets their hands on it, so you can upload to them. Everyone else then has to download from you, but since everyone that's more than slightly involved has a seedbox with symmetric gigabit, the issue of leeches just isn't the same as it was before in the dial up and DSL era. That the culture hasn't been able to evolve past that, and hangs on to such outdated notions is disappointing. I'm not saying people shouldn't be incentivized to give back. Leeches suck. But in this land of plenty, theres this problem of being unable to seed because there's just too many seeders trying to seed.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?

#210

Post by SonuSitebot »

Great question — I’ve thought about this too. Technically, large-scale P2P streaming is possible, especially with today’s upload speeds and a tree-like distribution (log(N) structure). But there are big hurdles:

Churn & reliability: Peers come and go, making stable streaming tricky. Latency: BitTorrent-style protocols aren’t built for real-time delivery. Incentives: Without rewards, too many users just leech. WebRTC: It hits limits fast and often relies on centralized relays. Legal risks: Media companies don’t play nice with decentralized distribution.

Bram Cohen tried with BitTorrent Live, but it fizzled out. Would love to see someone revive this with modern tech — still feels like untapped potential.

Post reply on HN