It's funny to be part of that history. As the article says, "for a file to live on, at least one person has to keep sharing it", and for a while, I was that person (see the comments on that HN post).
And then about 5 years later I lost the files in a hard drive crash. Tried to grab the torrent again and all this time later it is sitting at, you guessed it, 94.8%.
But I neglected to actually check the download folder. When I did, I found out it actually downloaded all the important files, just the logo of the upload group was still a .part file…
So I quickly downloaded another more popular release by the same group, copied over the logo and lo and behold, now it got to 100%!
That day I actually felt like a hacker…
But then, occasionally 1 or 2 gets completed, and then I'm happy
Point being, not all of these torrents can be shared at the same time, so uTorrent uses some algorithm to cycle over the seeded files in small groups over time. Maybe that's what's happening in this scenario.
Some trackers also have re-seed requests which means that the tracker knows which users downloaded the torrent in the past and when it's no longer seeded and someone requests a reupload, those uses get that request into their inbox, so there's a chance that some of them have kept the files and can thus re-seed the torrent.
For reference, a server in Germany in 2003 had bandwidth prices between €.8 and €2 per gigabyte 
And that's assuming the CDN is perfect. That it has a node in every place there are users. Which none of them actually do because the world is really big.
Worse, the places without them are the places with the slowest networks in general. If you're using twice as much bandwidth on some 100Gbps piece of fiber in New York City, the users aren't even going to notice that and the ISP can just send more light through the glass. But when there are a hundred users sharing some 40Mbps microwave link in some third world village and all trying to download the same thing, there isn't going to be a CDN node there and only having to suck it through the straw once multiplies the efficiency improvement by the number of users on the far end of the line, which in that case would be a factor of a hundred.
Moreover, you can get the efficiency benefit of the CDN by replacing the CDN box with a box in the same place that seeds popular content using a P2P protocol, without losing the efficiency benefits of P2P for the people not near one of those.
If the majority of traffic came p2p, then the asymmetry of upload/download bandwidth on shared media like cable modems would start to be a significant issue, wouldn't it? Only on the local segment, but on _every_ such segment.
In that case, the seedbox-as-CDN-node route would be a no-brainer for ISPs to install.
Are we reinventing the topology of Usenet?
And you can still get 100 Mbps downloads that way by downloading from multiple peers at once, which doesn't change the average transfer rate required from each peer because then twenty people upload at 5 Mbps for 10 seconds instead of one peer having to upload at 5 Mbps for 200 seconds to transfer the same amount of data.
But the asymmetric link speed is artificial anyway. There is no technical reason they couldn't make fully symmetric cable modems -- in fact they did so in DOCSIS 4.0, though it's not widely deployed yet.
The main reason they're hesitant to offer it is, ironically, that P2P isn't sufficiently widely used. Because then hosting is scarce and people will have the incentive to do high volume hosting on their own connections. Which is bad for the ISP who offers a fast uplink, because they rely on over-subscribing their connections to offer the prices they do. If you give someone a fast uplink, it's quite easy to saturate it 24/7 by serving files to millions of users. So the ISPs don't want to do that.
But if P2P distribution was the default then that wouldn't be a problem because nobody would need to do that. You'd upload your thing once or some small number of times and then the users could get it from each other instead of millions of people all trying to get it from the one host. Everyone could have a 100 Mbps uplink and the average upload speed would still equal the average download speed, e.g. 5 Mbps, because that's all you need when the load is evenly distributed.
 or roommates want the same files and their router supports hairpin NAT or the software uses local segment discovery.
When it comes to video torrents, I suspect a lot of people would start at looking for 4k rips (even if their devices didn't support it), or fall back to standard bluray rips. That's a huge amount of bandwidth when most people probably are fine with DVD or upscaled DVD quality.
I haven't really seen much 4k to know how I'll feel about that jump. Though I've definitely seen some split-screen streams where I wished it was 4k.
I just did a quick test with x264 at quality 20 on two different clips. On a very high motion animated sequence, it came out at 2GB/3.4GB per hour. A live-action clip of people walking and talking came out at .65GB/1.3GB per hour. So that's 40% less and 50% less, respectively.
And with h.265 you can get something like h.264 720p size with h.264 1080p quality, everything else held equal.
Tried to watch Ted Lasso at peak lock down. Apple TV+ bumped the quality something to 480p since it was evening in nationwide lockdown so all streaming services are down to 40mbps (tho realistically Apple was barely moving at 3-4mbps). They do let you downloading episodes, but that's still at 1080p.
Fired up WebTorrent and was watching it glorious 4k in matter of minutes...
I don't even go close to a torrent site anymore.
It's just not worth being accused of something.
And to the Copyright Net Nannies--what's the outcome?
Musicians are paid less than before the crackdown.
Books are selling at an all time low.
List (as of 2019) of public domain versions.
Behind all of those is lawyers. Contemporary copyright exists exclusively for the benefit of lawyers and people who can afford lawyers.
The gov DNS block sites, but that’s it really.
I have worked on $100 million+ budget projects with Netflix and Apple. The amount of buying items to return within 30 days is absurd
But it's impressive for a public tracker.
Yes, it's good enough that this discussion can only possibly refer to one place.
In this day and age of convoluted terms of services (TOS/TOC), xyz as a service/subscription, and just plain DRM, no one really owns anything anymore. No one can be sure what version they do have is the original and immutable version. Edits and omissions happen because of licensing issues and just plan social activism. Problematic content should be acknowledged but not purged and erased.
It’s vital people have the means to share data regardless of what the powers that be allow to be shared.
By problematic content, do you mean stolen content? What do you suggest other than purging and erasing stolen content?
Also, you can't steal data. Copying is not stealing.
Of course not. That's trespassing, a real crime unlike copyright infringement. Physical space at the venue is limited and the actual artists are the most scarce resources there is. It makes sense to pay to see artists you love play live.
No idea why you're applying physical world concepts to digital "content" which can be infintely copied. It doesn't work. Mental gymnastics like copyright exist purely to enable rent seeking monopolists. It's not even morally defensible. Artists receive what, 30% of the profits of their record sales?
The 30% is pulled out of your ass. If I did all my own editing and released songs on Spotify without any assistance I would get a much higher cut. If I don't like Spotify I am allowed to sell mp3s on my own website. However - if I was trying to produce a high quality album a year and coordinate worldwide tours then it is worth it to me to share my profits with hundreds of talented artists/marketers/engineers on my team or in contract with my team.
I pulled it off a search engine. And that was one of the better figures. Do you have better data?
As famous quote goes, 'Slavery, Apartheid and Holocaust were legal'
> (imitating a woman defending ridiculous divorce settlements): "That's what the law says!"
> (himself): "A hundred years ago I could beat you with a mop handle, that's what the law said! Doesn't make it right!"
What's the second oldest torrent? That's probably a better measure of the network health, because it doesn't get attention from articles about the oldest active torrent.
Though I don't know if it is a good indicator. Even though, at the time, BakaBT was semi-private and not private, lessening the incentives to seed as one could download without limit by logging out, it still has a system that rewards seeding torrents with no/few seders.
according to the thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962253 an article about the then believed to be oldest torrent, turned out to be a few months less old than this one, so we need to look for the third oldest now to get a good answer.
on piratebay i found a torrent from 2008 that still works.
I hope is the 3rd
Even for legitimate purposes?
Something like 10,000 peers have been keeping it alive for the past two years. Of course this mention is enough to drastically increase it's popularity.
Oh and I can't write a comment about it and not acknowledge the tragic passing of Michael Falzon. What a loss
I remember the year when the ad people started bullying the fan sites off the web because they were "stealing from creators"... by driving clicks away from traffic whoring aggregators that were worse, less curated, depersonalized, less focused in every way than what they cannibalized.
The modern web feels so empty and full of darkness in comparison. Nothing in it seems like it matters unless it enriches someone else's mission of accumulating wealth, and everything else is villainized that doesn't signal loudly for the sake of the dragons how much it costs to keep the lights on.
And I just realized the irony of saying this on HN.