3 ms·

> Never stated I was an expert in torrent or broadcasting. But barely one who has used bittorrent can counter most of your arguments. The way you discussed thi

> Never stated I was an expert in torrent or broadcasting. But barely one who has used bittorrent can counter most of your arguments. The way you discussed this came off as incredibly arrogant, so you shouldn't hold your hands up all of a sudden and claim you're being misrepresented—I personally expected you were a bittorrent developer disgruntled over lack of adoption for non-technical reasons or similar based on the vitriol and self-assuredness. There is a way to point out that some of those things should not theoretically be a problem without acting like they have no practical merit whatsoever and that anyone who believes so is an idiot. When you cite audio streaming you especially make yourself look like a Dunning-Kruger case as delivering adaptive HD video involves many complex issues that are completely non-existent or trivial for audio. It's hard enough with full control over your own PoPs, and layering on P2P only makes it more complex. Content rights / privacy aside, you could never rely on this as primary delivery for commercial content, so in effect you'd be layering a bittorrent system on top of a traditional CDN setup as a cost saving measure, but you've have to be damn sure QoS didn't degrade in the process which is also non-trivial. Just because it's theoretically possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

tjoff 8y ago
There is a way to point out that some of those things should not theoretically be a problem without acting like they have no practical merit whatsoever and that anyone who believes so is an idiot. I felt the original message had the same tone and thought to answer with the same. I shouldn't have. And I went further. And I just couldn't stop. I shouldn't be commenting when I'm this frustrated (unrelated to this thread). Again, I'm sorry.
- p1necone 8y ago
  Nah you're fine. I'm getting serious "ideological/political argument" vibes off the other commenter. I recognize the other commenters tactics as the same "throw a bunch of dubious claims at the wall, force your opponent to spend way more time refuting each one than it took you to make them, and as soon as they look like they're climbing out move the goalposts again" thing that I see in political arguments with half drunk friends and strangers on political subreddits :P I'm sure I've seen a great webcomic that describes this somewhere but I can't find it...
  - laumars 8y ago
    Your only point was popcorn time and that stacks up poorly against a good RMTP stream. The problem we have here is that a bunch of hackers have seen it can be done with BT (which nobody is saying it can't be) and then assuming that BT is suitable for someone like Netflix. If it were that clear cut then we would already be using it. But the fact remains BT doesn't actually stack up that good against already established technologies we use for video streaming. I'm not saying this for the sake of an "ideological/political argument", this is a well researched point I've discovered doing my professional day job. It's ever so easy to hack something together that works for a bunch for non-payment customers who just want to pirate something. It's a whole other ball game to build a production service with advertisers (where applicable) and other partners and sell that to paying customers. What you're doing is comparing a kit car to a bus and saying they're the same because they both transport people. Then assuming the kit car can transport the 40 people at a time for 12 hours a day every day because you've made the previous logical assumption of equivalence.

tjoff 8y ago

There is a way to point out that some of those things should not theoretically be a problem without acting like they have no practical merit whatsoever and that anyone who believes so is an idiot. I felt the original message had the same tone and thought to answer with the same. I shouldn't have. And I went further. And I just couldn't stop. I shouldn't be commenting when I'm this frustrated (unrelated to this thread). Again, I'm sorry.

p1necone 8y ago
Nah you're fine. I'm getting serious "ideological/political argument" vibes off the other commenter. I recognize the other commenters tactics as the same "throw a bunch of dubious claims at the wall, force your opponent to spend way more time refuting each one than it took you to make them, and as soon as they look like they're climbing out move the goalposts again" thing that I see in political arguments with half drunk friends and strangers on political subreddits :P I'm sure I've seen a great webcomic that describes this somewhere but I can't find it...
- laumars 8y ago
  Your only point was popcorn time and that stacks up poorly against a good RMTP stream. The problem we have here is that a bunch of hackers have seen it can be done with BT (which nobody is saying it can't be) and then assuming that BT is suitable for someone like Netflix. If it were that clear cut then we would already be using it. But the fact remains BT doesn't actually stack up that good against already established technologies we use for video streaming. I'm not saying this for the sake of an "ideological/political argument", this is a well researched point I've discovered doing my professional day job. It's ever so easy to hack something together that works for a bunch for non-payment customers who just want to pirate something. It's a whole other ball game to build a production service with advertisers (where applicable) and other partners and sell that to paying customers. What you're doing is comparing a kit car to a bus and saying they're the same because they both transport people. Then assuming the kit car can transport the 40 people at a time for 12 hours a day every day because you've made the previous logical assumption of equivalence.