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

BitTorrent v2

blog.libtorrent.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 576 posts

Re: BitTorrent v2

#51

Post by slim »

xibalba wrote: post #11

To me, BitTorrent feels a lot like Blockchain: interesting tech that doesn't seem to be able to find a practical and useful application (proportionate to the attendant hype). Which is not to say that either can't, they just haven't yet. Why? EDIT: while I don't (yet) consider myself delirious, responses to this comment have illuminated how little I know about the influence and application of BitTorrent. In other word…

I estimate that thousands of people use torrent every day since 20 years. I use it very often. maybe it's just that nobody uses it in your close network

Re: BitTorrent v2

#52

Post by Stratoscope »

m3kw9 wrote: post #15

Talk about an un-mobile friendly website

It even manages to evade the usual "Show simplified view" bottom bar that Chrome mobile shows when it detects that a page is likely hard to read.

Rather ironically, you get a much more readable view if you select "Desktop site" in the Chrome mobile menu and then double-tap the main text column.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#53

Post by ajtulloch »

oblio wrote: post #31
yepthatsreality wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why...? BitTorrent has been influential in lots of applications. If you really need proof that BitTorrent can move milestones, it help perpetuate sites like thepiratebay.org and assisted in the advent of modern day streaming services that both the music and movie industry neglected for years. It is also a central influence for p2p networking and file sharing.

Yeah, but it's not used anymore, from what I know. Few places use it for distribution, I guess they don't consider it worth the hassle. Blizzard was using it to distribute binaries. I guess mobile internet was its downfall as few people want to seed from a mobile connection.

Lots of companies use BT in a datacenter environment to efficiently distribute binaries to a large number of hosts.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#54

Post by [deleted] »

freedomben wrote: post #38
mac01021 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't ISPs bill by the gigabyte and be done with it?

Because customers lose their minds with that model, largely as a result of conditioning that "internet" is an unlimited resource (which of course it is when instantaneous demand Personally I understand the economics around it, but still don't like the idea of paying per GB. I would end up skipping some Netflix and would get mad at kids for playing Netflix to an empty room (much like I currently get mad when they leav…

[deleted]

Re: BitTorrent v2

#55

Post by TheRealPomax »

proverbialbunny wrote: post #25

It feels like this isn't a large enough leap forward. It would be nice if BitTorrent v2 made it harder for ISPs to identify what is bit torrent traffic. AT&T artificially slows down upload speeds.

Why would the that be the protocol's responsibility?

Re: BitTorrent v2

#56

Post by UncleEntity »

IshKebab wrote: post #42
smabie wrote: post #3

I've written a torrent client, and I'm skeptical than v2 will ever catch on. While it does solve some minor problems, it's not a large enough leap forward to justify the costs.

Yeah this definitely feels like a Python 2/3 type situation. They solved one minor issue but require the whole world to update. I'm not even convinced they couldn't have done it in a backwards compatible way. Why not stick with SHA-1 but also add SHA-256 for verification for clients that support it?

> Why not stick with SHA-1 but also add SHA-256 for verification for clients that support it?

Apparently you can do that with 'hybrid' magnet links.

The problem is the two swarms are different so as more people move over to v2 the v1 swarms will become smaller and smaller -- thus giving people an incentive to upgrade, I suppose.

...and they seem to have solved more than one minor issue since they were breaking things anyway...

Re: BitTorrent v2

#57

Post by liability »

xibalba wrote: post #30
mawalu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean beside being responsible for ~50% of the global internet traffic in 2009? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent

Insofar as the majority of that traffic is likely illegal (in terms of sharing pirated property) I would not consider it useful.

It's not legal, therefore it's not practical? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#58

Post by kardos »

proverbialbunny wrote: post #25

It feels like this isn't a large enough leap forward. It would be nice if BitTorrent v2 made it harder for ISPs to identify what is bit torrent traffic. AT&T artificially slows down upload speeds.

> It feels like this isn't a large enough leap forward.

The hash it relies on is broken, so their hand has been forced.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#59

Post by tyfon »

freedomben wrote: post #38
mac01021 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't ISPs bill by the gigabyte and be done with it?

Because customers lose their minds with that model, largely as a result of conditioning that "internet" is an unlimited resource (which of course it is when instantaneous demand Personally I understand the economics around it, but still don't like the idea of paying per GB. I would end up skipping some Netflix and would get mad at kids for playing Netflix to an empty room (much like I currently get mad when they leav…

That kind of depends on the price pr gb.

To use the power analogy, when I was young the price of power was relatively high but in recent times it has now dropped to 0.6 NOK / kWh so even charging the car from 10-80% (~61 kWh) cost 40 NOK or $4. I do not get mad at the kids leaving the light on like my mother did to me.

I (or rather my job) currently pays about 1000 NOK/ month for unlimited 500 MBit synchronous fiber internet. I transfer maybe 500 GB/month so for it to be cheaper for me it would be under 2 NOK/GB or $.2 which sounds really high but that is what I currently pay with my usage.

Re: BitTorrent v2

#60

Post by gkfasdfasdf »

mac01021 wrote: post #33
proverbialbunny wrote: post #25

It feels like this isn't a large enough leap forward. It would be nice if BitTorrent v2 made it harder for ISPs to identify what is bit torrent traffic. AT&T artificially slows down upload speeds.

Why don't ISPs bill by the gigabyte and be done with it?

Agreed, this would align incentives nicely. Maybe we would see more innovation in compression technology that way.
Post reply on HN