It works exactly as for non-p2p streaming, as the playback synchronization is independent from the p2p part and entirely managed by the video player through its

It works exactly as for non-p2p streaming, as the playback synchronization is independent from the p2p part and entirely managed by the video player through its buffer management system. Basically you get the “latest block” from the stream's manifest (that always comes from the CDN) and then the player is playing a few blocks behind and keeping its buffer full. Those blocks still need to be sent to the new user's entry point to the CDN. I doubt you're going to save any money by sending every single video stream to every single node in the CDN. You're going to send the video only to nodes that have connected viewers of that particular stream. Then you have the issue of pausing everyone else’s feed until the new user catches up. Yes, but that's already the case for most live streaming website you can find unless they specifically aim for low-latency (which comes with a QoS drawback since smaller buffer means buffering is more likely for the end user if the connection isn't flawless, so going to low-latency is a trade-off) and it was the case on Twitch itself before 2019. I think Twitch has moved on from that. Users' expectations have gone way up. They want more interaction with streamers, not less. They aren't going to tolerate a backslide to higher latencies if the only purpose is to save Twitch money. Competition from other platforms, especially YouTube, is fierce. High latency (>5s) leads to this shallow form of engagement where viewers send one-way comments to the streamer and then wait (and hope) they hear back. Low latency promotes live conversations. This is especially critical on small streams where the number of people in the chat doesn't overwhelm the streamer. And as I said before, smaller streams are less likely to have streamers who lean into heavy third-party monetization strategies. These streamers often develop closer relationships with their viewers and have a higher percentage of subscribed viewers. Maybe, but how many times more valuable? Has the per user value increase by a factor 20 since 2019? If no, maybe having reduced the bandwidth cost would have made more sense that trying to improve engagement. I think they are trying to reduce bandwidth costs, but not uniformly across users. My theory is that they are trying to discourage casual viewers who don't subscribe. Getting rid of these "freeloader users" would naturally cause per-user value to go up!