I didn't confuse checksums and signatures. I understand the difference between a checksum and a cryptographic signature. I'm sorry if "verification" was used ou

I didn't confuse checksums and signatures. I understand the difference between a checksum and a cryptographic signature. I'm sorry if "verification" was used outside its normal context, I just felt it was the best descriptor. Secondly, there's been multiple times where I've downloaded a large file and found it was corrupted. Under conventional protocols you can't easily identify the part that is damaged, so even if it's only a small part (because WiFi dropped or whatever), you have to redownload the whole thing. Instead of doing that, I have just created a torrent, uploaded to openbittorrent, and downloaded the few megabytes I still needed. I agree it may not be worth it to torrent small files (maybe <50MB), but I am not so pessimistic. As far as ISPs go, they just have to accept that their customers are going to be uploading much more than they have been and provide whatever infrastructure upgrades are required. I have no pity for that situation and I don't think it's a valid excuse to not see wider-spread usage of BitTorrent as a conventional download mechanism (i.e., baked into browsers, looks like a HTTP download). They can even default browsers to upload at a low rate, like 5Kb/s, or even 0Kb/s, and be fine; the benefits we're discussing now are inherent in the protocol, not necessarily the size of the swarm; we can still expect content providers to provide the machines that upload all of their content and allow seeding as opt-in only, and see big improvements from the usage of the BitTorrent protocol.