|
|
Fri, Mar. 4th, 2005, 06:59 am
upload/download ratios
Some BitTorrent web sites have implemented upload/download ratios, with banning of people whose ratio gets too out of whack. The problem with this approach (aside from that it's completely unclear that not uploading is a problem to begin with, since tit-for-tat works well) is that it's overly punishing. Just a little bit of threatening to ban people can get the overall balance to be very heavily weighted on the side of uploading, making it difficult for people to accomplish a reasonable amount of upload even if they try. What typically happens in a single torrent is that at the beginning upload and download ratios are reasonably correlated, then over time people finish downloading, and some of them leave, but a significant number of seeds remain. After a while there's a period of time where there are many more seeders than downloaders. Anyone who joins the torrent at this late time will be generally get a download rate limited by their download capacity, and anyone who tries to upload to them will only be able to do so at a low rate. Such people will have very out of whack upload/download ratios, but they're downloading from otherwise unutilized upload resources, and hence not being anywhere near the drain on the system that their total upload/download ratio indicates. A better approach would be to not count it against people when they download from heavily overseeded torrents. Or to just not use total upload/download ratios at all, or if you do only make them advisory and not a source of banning.
Fri, Mar. 4th, 2005 08:13 pm (UTC)
 jooon
Thanks! Now I can just point to this article when I try to argue against those (usually very easy to cheat) up/down ratio systems.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 03:32 pm (UTC)
cramer
Ratio systems aren't there to punish people. They are there to discourage the drive-by leeches. That's one of the biggest problems with BT: people download their fill and immediately run off -- leaving a void in the swarm (low availability of certain blocks) that places a burden on the (few or one) seeder(s). I see this on every site that doesn't enforce ratios, and rarely find peers doing this when their ratio is tracked. Those who what to be "BT criminals" know very well how to lie to the tracker to fudge their stats. It's extremely easy to do and very difficult to catch.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 12:17 am (UTC)
 joannoudotnet
You're leaving out one important part of the equation: uploading one's own content. Every site I've used with upload/download ratios has expected users to "give back" to the system not by uselessly seeding overseeded torrents for long periods of time, but by adding their own torrents to the system, increasing the total number of available files. Just a thought.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)
bramcohen
That's a completely different category of behavior. Uploading is uploading, publishing is publishing, and conflating them is ridiculous.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 08:37 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Publishing and uploading may not technically be the same, but on sites where there is the promise of new torrents, life is exactly as it appears: uploaders publish.
whether you label it as ridiculous or not, it IS the reality of the way portal-style bittorrent websites operate.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 03:20 am (UTC)
strangegod
I've had no problem keeping good ratios and I'm on some sites that heavily enforce ratio stuff. I guess mathematically ratios higher than 1 have to be lowering someone's ratio below 1 though, so the system can't really work for everyone.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 03:46 pm (UTC)
cramer
It's an economy... there will always be rich people (>>1) and poor people (<1). There's never really any escaping this. The providers of the goods ("uploaders") will always get rich off the consumers ("leeches")... for every 1k that's downloaded, 1k has to be uploaded; that 1k had to come from somewhere.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 07:38 am (UTC)
kaisers
I didn't know where else to post this but here goes. Me and a friend of mine are working on a project for grad school to make a program that when a users subscribes to RSS feeds that this program will use this to open up bittorrent to download such files. We were wondering if it were possible to have a short little interview with you, maybe 10-12 questions max, to get some insight from the creator of bittorrent to add into our paper over the project. Thanks.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 09:16 am (UTC)
d03boy
What if somehow the TOTAL ratio was kept track of in the system instead of user-by-user approaches? It might be easier to explain with an example: Peer1 uploads faster so it is more able to achieve a 2:1 ratio than Peer2 who uploads fairly slow; Peer2 might not even be able to realistically achieve a 1:1 ratio. Now, as long as the entire system can achieve a ratio greater than 1:1 (or whatever it may be), there really shouldn't be any major problems. Perhaps punishing users, ONLY if the entire system can't achieve steady performance, could help those peers that are incapable of uploading at a 1:1 ratio. I haven't put more than about 30 seconds of thought into this, so I'm sure there are a lot more issues to worry about, but its just an idea. (I hope it makes some bit of sense; it is rather late after all)
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 04:06 pm (UTC)
cramer
Looking at this as a closed loop (which it's supposed to be, 'tho there are growing numbers of decentralization hacksextensions.) The total ratio of the system should always be nearly 1:1. For every block uploaded, there's a corresponding block downloaded -- with a number of possible exceptions... Let's start with a blank economy -- no uploads or downloads yet, everyone's at zero... I walk in with a 650M redhat cd. For every block I upload, there's someone who's asked for it and thus one block credited as downloaded. In the absence of any errors, upload:download should always be 1:1. Now, that's theory. In practice... Clients lie. Clients fail to report to the tracker. Clients crash taking statistics with them. Hash failures occur for any number of reasons. Data gets discarded as duplicates and unsolicited. In the real world, the ratio is never 1:1. (that's why you cannot determine the size of a torrent from upload/download/left sent to the tracker.)
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 09:59 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): upload/download ratios
You are looking at this from a single torrent perspective. You are right about the case where it is difficult to get a good ratio on heavily overseeded torrents and most sites take that into account when they set the limit. The problem these sites are trying to address are with the peers that drop out of the swarm as soon as or soon after completing their download regardless of how many seeders/leechers are left - the hit-and-run peers.
Your approach to not count it against people when they download from heavily overseeded torrents will not prevent someone from doing a hit-and-run. The simplest and cheapest way to determine if someone is doing that on a consistent basis is teh total upload/download ratio. It also has the effect of making people seed more that the minimum necessary on the next torrent if for some reason they did not have a good ratio on the last one.
Don't look at it as upload/download ratio - look at it as bandwidth used to your benefit (downloading) and that used to the benefit of others (uploading).
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 05:38 pm (UTC)
bramcohen: Re: upload/download ratios
Even if almost everyone quit the instant their download was completed you'd still have decent download rates, they'd just be closer to everyone's upload rates. Such behavior isn't really very destructive.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 04:21 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: upload/download ratios
I only know the BT protocol at a very high level, not at a programer's level (and, for the record, I don't run a tracker), so I don't know what you mean by destructive in this context but if the effect is to make my download rate close to my upload rate, then it's really not working for me as weill as it should. My upload bandwidth like most other people I know is about half my download bandwidth (ADSL). For others on cable it is even lower. I guess ISP's don't really need to throttle the downlaod speed on the standard ports to kill off BT - they only need to make the up bandwidth 5-10% of the down bandwidth and that will be the end of the problem.
The fact is tit-for-tat is good on paper but doesn't work as well in reality for one very simple reason - it doesn't take human nature into account. People are averse to any feeling that they are getting cheated while at the same time being perfectly willing to cheat to get the most out of a system at any cost (case in point, Mr Pink below). When they see they are not downloading at their maximum speed but they are uploading as much or more than they are downloading, i.e., their ratio on this torrent is greater than 1, their reaction is to cap their upload because they think they are being taken advantage of. If everyone keeps lowering their up speed in reaction to someone else, the system no longer works as well as it should, IMO.
BT works at its best when everyone uploads at close to their maximum. You will only see that happen in swarms where it's to one's own benefit to upload at his maximum; that is, when the torrent site enforces a share ratio system that forces them to do exacty that. Downloads are almost always much faster on torrents from such sites than on those from sites that have no ratio system.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 04:25 pm (UTC)
cramer: Re: upload/download ratios
I'm going off the topic here, but I feel it's a useful datum... Most consumer internet connections are asymmetric for the simple reason that consumer's traffic is generally asymmetric. The average user going about normal tasks -- email, web, gaming, etc. -- downloads about 10x as much as they upload. It ranges from 8:1 to 20:1. That's why ISPs sell connections that are about 10:1 in favor of downloads. (p2p really screws that statistic up, btw.)
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 09:04 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: upload/download ratios
Even if almost everyone quit the instant their download was completed you'd still have decent download rates, they'd just be closer to everyone's upload rates. Such behavior isn't really very destructive. Initially, that may be the case. But the long-term consequences of 'hit & run' become obvious on very busy sites (thousands of torrents). These consequences, however, don't affect the individual that does not give as much as they get. Torrents die (zero peer) long before the demand for that torrent does. Since the hit & runner already has the file what do they care? On trackers with good, small community, torrents last for months and months and the original seeders are LONG gone. Torrents are seeded like this because people WANT to do it. It's beneficial to the longevity of the site and its only fair to other users that they do so. The consequence of hit & run on ratio controlled trackers is the threat of limited (or removed) access to torrents. This obviously directly affects individuals, and is directly controllable by the individual. Suddenly, the # of seeds rises sharply. On very busy torrent sites, this works. On the torrent you mention above, where it has passed peak interest and there's a gaggle of seeders and with only the ocassional downloader, you're right... there is no real reason for anyone to stay in that swarm because the individual isn't likely to attain equilibrium on the single torrent. But if it's a busy site, like most ratio controlled torrent sites, there's thousands of other torrents to attempt to seed. Plus, since we're not talking about software or distribution providors where there is very limited choice (if any) nor is there reason for a regular return, it's likely that something you downloaded 2 weeks ago could be thought of as fresh by peers that missed it before... even tho it may be the 4th or 5th or 15th separate posting. The point here is that on busy sites there are many other opportunities to catch-up. And if you want to remain a regular visitor, you won't be allowed to just take take take from peers. Your FULL participation is required. The purpose of share ratio enforcement is NOT simply to make people follow an arbitrary rule with a mere number at it's heart. Ratio enforcement is to ensure retention of current files and addition of new files (which creates page views). In my experience, share ratio control works in both respects.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 10:29 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
This is the kind of person these sites are up against:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2525818
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
Fake Statistics
2004-04-16 08:47
I admit I am a leech. I have a very fast 3.5 Mb download pipe and only 32KB upload. I like to suck down a torrent after it has many seeders and then run. I simply do not have time to stick around and seed and give up my upload bandwidth.
The problem is that some sites will ban your IP if you have a low ratio. There are tricks that I use which I am not going to disclose in public but it would be nice if G3 could report false stats to the tracker. For instance if I downloaded 1 Gig and uploaded 20MB, it would be nice if I could set G3 to report 1 Gig downloaded and say 1.1 Gig uploaded.
G3 should become the ultimate leech client and distinguish itself from the pack of clients that are in competition.
The ultimate would be if you could invent a way to hide your IP in a way similar to the colonies of ants foraging for food method used by Mute.
In closing I think you should continue to develop G3 and turn it into the ultimate leecher client. Why not call it, G3 Devil.
Mr. Pink
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2645238
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
Fake Stats
2004-07-01 14:46
I hope that you can code G3 so that it will report user selected fake stats to the tracker. Let's make G3 the ultimate leecher client. I have fat pipe down and I like to suck it down, hit and run. I am busy person and I simply do not have time to waste by sitting around uploading all day. Let's face facts, we are all pirates and thieves, that is why we use Bittorrent. I would love to be able to upload fake stats to the tracker hehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2646778
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-02 13:39
Woot! I just downloaded a 1.3 gig movie with the new release of G3. I capped my upload at 5KB and was downloading at close to 450KB. Really sucked it down. Then I checked my stats on the tracker site and for some reason G3 posted all the entire download as an upload - Woot Woot Woot! This is marvelous. I am beside myself with joy!
leech
n.
1. Any of various chiefly aquatic bloodsucking or carnivorous annelid worms of the class Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly used by physicians to bleed patients and is now sometimes used as a temporary aid to circulation during surgical reattachment of a body part.
2. One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.
3. Someone who downloads any torrent file and doesn't let their client upload back as much as they took.
v. leeched, leech.ing, leech.es v. tr.
1. To bleed with leeches.
2. To drain the essence or exhaust the resources of.
As touched upon in (1) Leeches were critical to the medical system in the middle ages and without them - the chances are your ancestors wouldn't have survived long enough for you to be born
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2648248
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-04 09:33
Dude,
G3 does report fake stats. Set your options so that it continues downloading after you complete the torrent, then when you are finished the torrent, pause the torrent, then close the client and voila your download will be reported as an upload. Very cool. Works for me.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 10:32 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2651583
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Ratios on sites? What do you think?
2004-07-06 13:32
I originally suggested this feature months ago. It is desperately needed. People are being banned from Torrent sites simply for having a poor ratio which is not right. Many people with poor ratios also contribute torrents to the sites and if they are banned everyone loses. I know that my good friend in Munich and all of his leecher friends would agree, we need the ability to force feed fake stats to the tracker. All is fair in love and war. Remember we are all thieves, cheats, crooks, pirates, blacksheep and in general dastardly people, that is why we use Bittorrent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2651595
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-06 13:41
Dude,
It is going to happen, why not have G3 to be the first client that controls stats to the tracker. Most of us are leechers. Remember, leopards do not change their spots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2651856
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-06 17:40
Dude or Dudette,
G3 rocks, we just need it to report fake stats to the tracker. People want this feature. I could care less about a gestapo tracker admin who complains. People want to be free. Let freedom ring!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2653143
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-07 09:23
I don't care about constipated people who complain and complain about leechers. The only way to stop the petty tyrants who admin some tracker sites is to report fake stats to the tracker. I personally know of two people who are currently working on a fake stats client. G3 could be the leader, the king of the hill leecher client!! People want it! The internet is free and banning people goes against the spirit of the internet. A fake stats client will be released soon, will it be G3?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2653406
By: Mr. Pink - bermudajazz
RE: Fake Stats
2004-07-07 12:15
Look, many people who are in the peer lists do not have a fat pipe. I can hardly be expected to upload for days to someone with a 56k modem. I have important things to do with my computer and my bandwidth, it is not my responsibility to continue to seed a file for days just so I can have a 1 to 1 ratio. There is a program for Kaaza called Kaaza Hack which reports fake stats and there will soon be a program tentatively called BT Hack which will report fake stats to the tracker. I would prefer that this feature be built into G3 however time waits for no man and technology marches onward. There is nothing that irritates me more than having some stranger on the internet trying to tell me what to do with my bandwidth. My bandwidth is my bandwidth and I will use it as I please, thank you.
Sat, Mar. 5th, 2005 05:42 pm (UTC)
bramcohen
You're missing the point. That person is engaging in perfectly reasonable and non-destructive behavior and the site is trying to punish him for it, thus fostering the creation of clients which lie about their statistics. This is the site's fault, and the result could do serious damage to the value of BitTorrent statistics generally. Sites which do this are being extremely destructive, and the way they grandstand about how they're fostering sharing really ticks me off.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 09:07 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Even if almost everyone quit the instant their download was completed you'd still have decent download rates, they'd just be closer to everyone's upload rates. Such behavior isn't really very destructive. Initially, that may be the case. But the long-term consequences of 'hit & run' become obvious on very busy sites (thousands of torrents). These consequences, however, don't affect the individual that does not give as much as they get. Torrents die (zero peer) long before the demand for that torrent does. Since the hit & runner already has the file what do they care? On trackers with good, small community, torrents last for months and months and the original seeders are LONG gone. Torrents are seeded like this because people WANT to do it. It's beneficial to the longevity of the site and its only fair to other users that they do so. The consequence of hit & run on ratio controlled trackers is the threat of limited (or removed) access to torrents. This obviously directly affects individuals, and is directly controllable by the individual. Suddenly, the # of seeds rises sharply. On very busy torrent sites, this works. On the torrent you mention above, where it has passed peak interest and there's a gaggle of seeders and with only the ocassional downloader, you're right... there is no real reason for anyone to stay in that swarm because the individual isn't likely to attain equilibrium on the single torrent. But if it's a busy site, like most ratio controlled torrent sites, there's thousands of other torrents to attempt to seed. Plus, since we're not talking about software or distribution providors where there is very limited choice (if any) nor is there reason for a regular return, it's likely that something you downloaded 2 weeks ago could be thought of as fresh by peers that missed it before... even tho it may be the 4th or 5th or 15th separate posting. The point here is that on busy sites there are many other opportunities to catch-up. And if you want to remain a regular visitor, you won't be allowed to just take take take from peers. Your FULL participation is required. The purpose of share ratio enforcement is NOT simply to make people follow an arbitrary rule with a mere number at it's heart. Ratio enforcement is to ensure retention of current files and addition of new files (which creates page views). In my experience, share ratio control works in both respects.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 09:33 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Explain how that is reasonable and non-destructive? I seek to understand.
It's unreasonable to deliberately cheat not the site but the bittorrent system and not upload AT ALL including while he's downloading. And it's destructive to anyone that may come along after him and try to get the same file.
Further, I guarantee you that this would be the first guy to harp and moan if the only seeder left the swarm before he could get the file... to expect of others that which he would scoff at doing himself.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 12:06 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
The problem though is while "tit-for-tat" may in theory seem to work for a given torrent, in reality it not only does not work for a given torrent, in practice due to client implementations, nor does it work over the course of many torrents.
Look at the individual torrent. Were TfT actually put into practice, since virtually everyone has an asynchronous connection, "TfT" would suggest that one only can download equal to or in some ratio to their ability to upload but then were that the true case, a torrent with numerous seeders and few, or even only one downloading peer would see the downloading peer(s) get nothing when usually the opposite is the case, the one, or few downloading peers end up with their download pipe stuffed to the maximum.
Also, were "TfT" to be as effective as one would hope on a given torrent, one would not see numerous peers giving back even less than 1% of what they have gotten even when the opportunities to share are many.
But, things are even more grim on a wider scale across numerous torrents and is the main reason why "TfT" isn't working to sustain the life of torrents and some other measure, such as ratio limiting is needed. If "TfT" is not effective for a given torrent, then it can be even less effective across numerous torrents because clients are not implemented to have any memory of what another given client has done in the past on other torrents.
So, in effect, ratio limiting systems fill in the gaps and could almost be considered an extension of "TfT" in that if one doesn't give back consistently, their ability to take is reduced. But at the same time, if one's ability to give back on one torrent is reduced because one is faced by numerous seeders on completion, one can make up for that on a future torrent. This is of course for systems that do NOT ban based on ratios but instead, limit one's ability to download if one falls below a certain point while still maintaining the ability to seed back to improve ones overall "TfT" rating. No one need ever be banned, because the worst that can happen is that they ruin their own chances to participate while the best that can happen, which often does, is that one then goes back and seeds torrents which before either were "dead" or have a number of peers trying to download but no one seeding.
Torrents do NOT die, the last seeder leaving kills them. Ratio limiting system give incentives to those who normally wouldn't, to extend the lives of torrents and thereby renewing and extending the life of torrents in general making them available to even more than before.
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 04:38 pm (UTC)
cramer
TfT doesn't apply when seeding as you don't have anything to request -- you've gotten it already. When there are only leeches, TfT does work. Other leeches generally favor those that are sending them data. (at least for well behaved clients.)
Sun, Mar. 6th, 2005 09:00 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
[QUOTE] TfT doesn't apply when seeding as you don't have anything to request -- you've gotten it already. When there are only leeches, TfT does work. Other leeches generally favor those that are sending them data. (at least for well behaved clients.) [/QUOTE]
Correct, so the thing to do would be to wait to download until there are many seeders and very few downloading peers, which will also correspond to the fastest download speeds, all things being equal, and then upon completion, instantly leave the swarm. The fastest download rates without having to worry about having to give anything back just to get anything.
I suppose it could be argued that those who already completed and are seeding are not hurt in any way as they already have what they wanted but it does hurt the longevity of a given torrent and without a corporate server to pick up the slack when seeders die out because those who have given back a fair share of what they have gotten leave, there are no more seeders for potential future downloaders who then in turn might have kept the torrent alive even longer.
TfT is a good idea and seems to work very well within a certain portion of a torrent's lifecycle when used by clients that are well behaved but relying on TfT alone for the longevity of a given torrent let alone trusting clients to be implemented to be well behaved hasn't shown to work that well when users have the ability to decide how much to give back to the swarm.
That said, banning a user based on their activities on a given swarm is ludicrous and even banning one based on overall performance over many torrents is not much better but extending the "TfT" effect over many torrents with a well designed ratio limiting system works rather well and has shown to attract uploaders of higher quality content as well.
The thing is, BT doesn't survive without a tracker and a tracker is only utilized and supported to the extent that some sort of community is present to even know it exists let alone upload to and download from it. Ignoring the privately run personal trackers that are never around for very long and unreliable even when they are around, the only two types of communities that seem to have been effective in their use of BT are registered sites and indexing sites.
But, looking at the torrents available on indexing sites where no ratios are imposed or even trackable, average lifetimes of both torrents as well as the trackers themselves that the torrents are hosted on are not too conducive to a given torrent reaching the largest distribution possible.
Content mey be uploaded and reuploaded numerous times to different trackers and then their torrents submitted to the indexing sites to give the appearance of a given piece of content being available for longer periods of time but with all the different versions of the same thing and with all the file name changing that goes on, it ends up being more confusing to the user as to exactly what they are getting.
In some communities, a "Slam bam thank you Ma'am" mentality does work but at the same time, there are an increasingly large number of users who prefer reliability as opposed to chance and anarchy does not instill reliability.
Ratio limiting sites don't limit ratios because it is fun to do. Coding a system that is both effective and fair is not easy and were it not needed, people wouldn't be investing hundreds and hundreds of man-hours building, testing, maintaining and improving them.
Thu, Mar. 10th, 2005 09:00 am (UTC)
danmarc
It is always funny to find people to set rules and boundaries for software they didn't even create. Upload/Download ratio's are like Bram wrote, everything and everybody else who don't agree, should create their own platform (software).
Just an opinion to the free world!
Sun, Apr. 10th, 2005 12:21 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Ratios do not belong in Bittorrent
It is really amusing to say the least watching these "community sites"
enforce ratios on a protocol that was designed in such a way to make
"ratios" obsolete. Anyone familiar with the bittorrent protocol can fake
upload statistics in less than 30 seconds. The fact is that the tracker has
no way of knowing how many bytes a client uploaded or downloaded. The tracker
"trusts" the client and accepts what the client reports as the truth.
Now, given the fact that client-tracker communication works over HTTP, anyone
can understand that you don't even have to code a new client or alter existing ones in order to "cheat". Ratios do nothing to promote longevity or discourage "hit & runners".
The ratio system should be declared dead because it is based
on obscurity (the fact that the majority does not know how to "lie" about
upload statistics) that anyone in the know can bypass. (One example: In many
bittorrent community forums that enforce ratios, you see people that have
uploaded terrabytes within days and with ridiculously low reported average
upload speeds. Yet, no-one does nothing and these "community-gods" are treated
with the utmost respect.)
Thu, May. 5th, 2005 04:58 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Whats So Hard?
I just don't see what the fuse is about, if you leech 100% then seed 100%. 1/2 of your seeding takes place while you download, so give it a bit longer, unless you are busy person like our friend Mr. Pink - bermudajazz (Who looks to be very busy trying to screw the system). But some pirates and narwelldoers, like to give out torrents/files and to see it die after the the first swarm then seed it again to watch it die again make you look a WinMX in a new light. I like the BT process but it takes participation by a of us thieves P.S. The Term Of Pirate Is To Loosely Used, Unless You Are Stealing Booty And Selling It, And We Are Simple P2P Users That Are Sharing Files That At Lease One Of Us Have Bought The Copyright To That Copy. The Only Real Buccaneers In The Whole Game Is The RIAA And The MPAA (HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR PRICES LATELY And The Artists Only Make Pennies On The Dollar). So in Conclusion "Who's Going To Give A Rats Fat Ass 100 Yrs From Now" Just Seed Till The Damn Counter Shows 100% Or 1.000 Or What Ever. And Mr. Pink - bermudajazz Don't Be A Big Baby "Just Play The Game Or Get Off The Field" Just My 2 Cents [Thanks Narwelldoer]
|