261–270 of 307 posts
There is Lbry as an alternative to YouTube as well. It seems interesting. https://lbry.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you're comparing against all YouTube users, or even all YouTube users who have ever uploaded a video, then yes, it's a lot. On the other hand, compared to most content being viewed on YouTube, it's not even tiny, it's minuscule. There are many niche hobbyist communities or individual hobbyist singers getting much more than that. 20 subscribers basically means that not even your friends and family are looking…
> 20 subscribers basically means that not even your friends and family are looking at your channel. I agree with your interpretation overall, but there's other factors at play: - Peertube isn't trying to force everyone to have an account like Youtube is - the Peertube federation is much younger, and some would say it reached maturity for broader usage very recently (this year) - view count does not account for people…
For comparison, here [0] is the YT channel that has moved to PeerTube, and here [1] is a random musician's channel that I happen to follow. The second is many times larger, even though it is a single person's channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps efficiency shouldn't be the thing we optimize for in this case. If you look at the internet it's extremely inefficient, there are millions of DNS servers all kind of have semi recent information about domains. There are millions of websites mainly hosted on extremely inefficient servers. There are millions of images and other assets mainly compressed less than they should be wasting tons of bandwidth. Yet her…
The thing is that dns and static web servers are serving an absolutely minuscule amount of data while a single video on youtube is several GB in the higher qualities. No one can compete on video hosting because it is constantly at the upper limit of what is possible. It will be forever before all videos go 4k and when they do, there will be a push to have it all at 60fps and then at higher bitrates and then at 120fps…
There's always some push for more quality but that doesn't mean the audience requires it. Youtube itself had horrible quality and outdated codecs for a long long time yet and that didn't stop it from getting popular. Video snobs are a bit of a niche that youtube has historically not catered for.
How does it measure up to LBRY / Odysee?
- every node needs to keep a complete history of the ledger so as the network grows only the biggest players can stay up... what does that say of Sybil/51% attacks?
- every video published has a public record, and i assume everyone paying to watch a video is also recorded publicly; no private communities
- their blockchain can only (according to odysee website) process 10K events per second... which they're proud of for some reason? that's a very low number compared to eg. Bittorrent DHT or Fediverse activity
- LBRY appears to favorize traditional "intellectual property" and pay-per-view model, not a donation-based economy of libre content
- LBRY relies on a "cryptocoin" to achieve their economic model, and their tech was not conceived to prevent speculation; i would even argue it's architectured for speculation, as it's based on Bitcoin without learning from any of Bitcoin's weaknesses/mistakes (from what i could read) ; Tribler/Taler sound like much more reliable solutions for such microtransactions
- LBRY is pushed by a for-profit company, whereas Peertube is developed by a bunch of volunteers, coordinated by the french libre culture/software non-profit Framasoft as part of their "Degooglize Internet" campaign [0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you want advertisers? Advertisers are part of the problem.
A significant portion of content creators do it as a full time job. Ads is a stable revenue stream for these content creators. You as a consumer are free to move to any decentralized video platform you like, but the main bottleneck for any significant shift in market share depends on content creators, and ultimately, on advertisers.
PeerTube, you need to remove view counts. They broadcast to new users how few people are at this party and how lame it is, let’s go back to that YouTube party.
How so? Just because something is not popular (yet?) doesn't mean it's lame. Also, view counts on a single instance are not representative of the entire federation.
Although i agree removing view counts would be good, because it produces bad incentives to artificially inflate your view count (which i've never witnessed on Peertube instances so far, but is possible).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 20 subscribers basically means that not even your friends and family are looking at your channel. I agree with your interpretation overall, but there's other factors at play: - Peertube isn't trying to force everyone to have an account like Youtube is - the Peertube federation is much younger, and some would say it reached maturity for broader usage very recently (this year) - view count does not account for people…
I think there is a slight misunderstanding. The numbers from my GP were about YouTube subscribers and views, not PeerTube. The point being that this is a minuscule YT channel that is moving to PeerTube, one that is hardly representative of anything. For comparison, here [0] is the YT channel that has moved to PeerTube, and here [1] is a random musician's channel that I happen to follow. The second is many times large…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could also post chunks of videos to a channel on an existing (corporate) video platform in an obscured form, such that they survive transcoding, and reconstitute them in the client. For example, invert the Pr channel, and reverse audio frames (realistically, do something better). There's your free CDN, provided by a legacy video platform in a way which (at least conceivably, if one properly tailors his approach)…
I'd be curious how much data you could store for free on Youtube given some clever steganography.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious how much data you could store for free on Youtube given some clever steganography.
Might only take a few people noticing and reporting it, until your account gets blocked or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large amount of small creators do this today only because YouTube is a free service . A lot of people will use their free time to make videos, but not if a portion of their disposable income has to be dedicated to hosting them.
> only because YouTube is a free service Nothing is free, if you don't pay for the product YOU are the product.