[rakoo]

At this point torrent clients don't provide much if they don't have a really differentiating set of features:

- torrents work if they are shared more than they are leeched, so it's just easier to have it run in the background. There's very little reason to not use the existing client/server models like transmission or tTorrent - indexing and search still relies too much on third parties. Integrate magnetico (passive indexing), bep 33 (dht-based scraping) and bep 51 (dht-based indexing) and the user gains an order of magnitude of autonomy because they don't rely on centralized authorities anymore - is there a possibility yo go further ? Make sharing files easier with bittorrent, or something like that ? Bittorrent clients should help with that

Innovation in this sector doesn't mean nicer fonts, there are real avenues for meaningful change that actually improve users' life

[heartbeats]

Here's your list - you have to use double newlines:

- torrents work if they are shared more than they are leeched, so it's just easier to have it run in the background. There's very little reason to not use the existing client/server models like transmission or tTorrent

- indexing and search still relies too much on third parties. Integrate magnetico (passive indexing), bep 33 (dht-based scraping) and bep 51 (dht-based indexing) and the user gains an order of magnitude of autonomy because they don't rely on centralized authorities anymore

- is there a possibility yo go further ? Make sharing files easier with bittorrent, or something like that ? Bittorrent clients should help with that

I don't think decentralized indexing is a solvable problem. There's too much crap, and too little in the way of useful signal to tell it apart.

What would be really useful, though, would be a way to separate indexing from the actual torrents.

Let me give you an example: say you're a member of a private tracker, and you see some release that looks nice. You click it in your torrent client. It then tries to find the same torrent on a public tracker (e.g. by hash), and downloads from and seeds to both.

If a system like this existed, then you could use private trackers just for the indexing, and then the computers could be left to do the actual work of finding the data.

Also, as a nice side bonus, this would allow for the "long tail" style of seeding that the more old-fashioned protocols have. If you're not seeding a whole torrent, but just a series of single files, nothing prevents you from just opening up e.g. the 'Downloads' folder to the public, and allow them to download if they can provide the hash of the file. This would make it much easier to find seeds, since the limit usually isn't bandwidth but storage.

[lambdadmitry]

If you use private torrents, chances are you want the swarms you participate in to be private, unless you're happy to announce your IP to RIAA. I do agree though that the current model in which cross-seeding between private swarms is an afterthought and a pain is not perfect. Clients should handle that automatically without having to resort to hardlinks and separate folders and heuristics to find matching torrents and partial matches and the rest of accidental complexity no one really wants.

[rakoo]

There actually are BEPs to manage cross swarms sharing, but I don't know of clients that do handle that. BEPv2 should make this easier though, because each file has their own hashes on top of the top-level hash.

[heartbeats]

This is only really a problem in the US, and for people who aren't using a VPN.

[rakoo]

> I don't think decentralized indexing is a solvable problem. There's too much crap, and too little in the way of useful signal to tell it apart.

I've been using decentralized indexing for more than a year and I haven't needed to go back to ad- and malware-ridden search sites. I find the number of seeders a good enough indicator of quality, but of course that only works for popular content.

EDIT: thanks for formatting, I always forget this double linefeed rule

[lambdadmitry]

Do you actually use torrents day to day? I have a strong suspicion that nowadays most people in developed economies who might be interested in TUIs use private trackers, as they're much safer and usually much better curated. However, that means that a) ratios are usually enforced, you have to keep seeding b) DHT and PEX are disabled and explicitly forbidden. Which in turn means the features you are describing are anti-features, especially considering the rise to *rrr-family of tools aggregating centralised private trackers, and relative unpopularity of DHT for discovery. Without curation and entry barriers open systems like DHT are only going to get spammed and/or get the swarm members DMCAed by RIAA and friends.

Edit: slight rewording

[rakoo]

I do use torrents daily, and I don't use private trackers because I subscribe to the idea of shared content available to everyone if the cost is nil. There definitively is spam, but it's not kazaa- or emule-level of spams: it's easy to find correct content as soon as it's not too obscure. With a fast enough connection, you can have a >1 ratio in a matter of hours at most, so your visibility is not very long. YMMV, of course.

[lambdadmitry]

I don't think seeding for hours is conductive to long term retention. For context, in private tracker land it's normal to seed an obscure arthouse movie for years, being an only seeder and getting it downloaded maybe five times. Which reminds me that the cost is not really nil, as you have to pay those electricity bills and depreciation to keep it available. Curation is not free either.

[rakoo]

I have lost hope that public torrents can serve as a good availability system. The issues are not technical but "societal", ie what rules do we collectively follow, to make content available. Private trackers are perfect for this specifically because they have a way to nudge people into re-sharing poorly seeded torrents. Bittorrent helps do that, but any technology can.

> being an only seeder and getting it downloaded maybe five times

I haven't seen/conducted a thorough study, but I believe that a ratio of 5 helps content be alive for a longer duration, even if imperfect, taking into account 1 or 2 or those 5 that will disconnect and stop sharing. Everyone should target this ratio. That's why I'm ok seeding for hours as long as I hit that number, but for more obscure content I might be seeding it forever

> Which reminds me that the cost is not really nil

True, nothing is really ever nil. What I meant to say is that the cost of distribution is nothing compared to the cost of production.