4 ms·
You are assuming all the peers start at the same time. It would be more fair to assume that the peers start regularly. In this case, the order does not cause is
by reacweb 7y ago
You are assuming all the peers start at the same time. It would be more fair to assume that the peers start regularly. In this case, the order does not cause issue.
- afiori 7y agoBut then you are assuming that people will seed for an considerable time (more that a few minutes) after watching the stream. If as many people do they do not seed then the last block will forever only have one seeder. (which would at least be the case for the last scene of the last episode of the last season, a point where you might not like buffering)
- anoncake 7y agoIf you make that the default, almost all people will continue to seed unless they never use the software again.
- afiori 7y agoThere is a fundamental assumption underlying this topic, are the user expected to be on desktop or mobile (including many laptops)? If the objective is to provide high bandwidth then mobile users might see a significant increase in battery and disk usage. not saying it would not work, I actually like the idea of more peer to peer networking. But as the market is clearly focused on low consumption user devices with commonly little drive capacity seeding would be a damage to UX.
- anoncake 7y agoPhones at least have smaller screens and need lower resolutions. But that doesn't really solve the problem.
- zaarn 7y agoMost torrents with low seeder counts aren't viable for livestreaming, the speeds are too often much too low.