Skip to main content

Why torrent low-ratio banning is killing the network and is generally a bad idea.

It seems a growing trend for people to get banned for low share ratios.

Now I can understand how this would appeal to some people`s sense of (in)justice as there are people out there who do not understand that not sharing while you download will ultimately make you download yours slower as you supply bits to other people who would otherwise been supplied by the seeder, making it possible for you to download from open slots at the seeder. These are typlically low-intellect `kiddies` who don`t do math and then download hacked clients because they are just stupid.

I agree that these people are evil.

But putting a share-ratio of 0.9 and higher as mandatory is just insane. (IMHO 0.1 is the absolute maximum)

Take the following example (using mathematical induction and taking values to extremes) if I limited my download to 1k/s and my upload to 25k/s (I have a 256/256 connection) my share ratio inexorably tends to go to sub-1.0. In fact, I find that only the T1 people seems to get any use out of these torrents. I start on the same torrent as everyone else, and I seed like crazy, but even so, those 30 people I started together with on the torrent all have the file completely downloaded within the first hour, and I still download the file for the next day at a measly 20k/s. So no matter HOW much I share and am willing to contibute, it seems I cannot win. (Yes, about all of those 30 people have high bandwidth, as most lower bandwidth users have already fallen prey to this)

In a way these torrent sites seem to be quite similar in nature to pyramid schemes where the rich only get richer and feed off the poor, ignorant and innocent. (Hehe... which am I?)

I joined p2p, and not understanding the low-ratio banning for lack of contemplation I was excited about the whole prospect of torrents. It seems now, however, that only the people creating the site and it's rules who, togther with a few select users, have the download (yes download) and upload bandwidth capacity to be able to stay in the black. The other poor fools who always seem to come at the end of torrents and never are able to seemingly finish downloading torrents as they are always the last in the queue, only serve to help the file spread a bit for those big users.

The two things that are equally bad to torrents in general are idiotic leechers, and pedantic rules.

I`ve just joined this eFarm and read the usuage policy/guide, and was dismayed to find these rules here as well.

I initially got invited here as I want to promote art/horror/noir/cult/foreign movies by seeding these. I`m not really interested in general releases, but would probably partake in spreading some of those as well) The only thing keeping me back is the general difficulty of creating torrent releases as I do not just re-seed scene ones like most other people, but have many of my own hard-to-find and not-released-by-local-distributor releases. For a list of what I`m talking about:

http://www.mediachest.com/users/lailoken/dvds.html

(In my country the film industry is controlled by only two companies who have not sense of what art-films are supposed to be about... and thus refuse to ever supply anything of real value)

And delaying low-ratio users will only exacerbate their situation, and they can just as well quit.

Let`s hope these views start a constructive conversation and not a flame war. It is a difficult problem to solve, but "cutting off one's nose" is not the ultimate solution. It's like using `chemo` to treat cancer when there *is* a cure...



Comments

Anonymous said…
After reading someone's post on a forum I replied:

Quote:
"Then leave. One less leacher is good for the network."

This statement is the key as to why p2p torrents will not live to see the future... well done, cretin.

It only works now because not enough people are disillusioned with torrents to make it work for the time being.

Using mathematical induction, the last person to download a torrent is a leecher... whether he wants to or not. Getting rid of that person will leave you with a second-last... who gets culled on the second iteration. And so on... until the seeder is all that remains... lonely at the top.

...
Moron!
Anonymous said…
yep I second that, and will prevent from any falming comments though you do deserve it
Anonymous said…
i didn't know that sites actually ban low-ratio users, i've just left my computer uploading for 5 days now to get my ratio back above 0.9 and still don't seem to get any decent dl rates, makes me wonder why i'm paying a premium for a very high speed adsl.

Popular posts from this blog

My Custom Mechanical 60% Keyboard Build

My Custom Mechanical 60% Keyboard Build All the parts   1x GH60 (Satan) board - $35 61x Cherry Clear switches  - $35 2x Cherry Blue switches - $3 10x Cherry Red switches - $10 1x PCB Stabilizer set (6.25 space) - $6 1x Royal Oak Glam 60% case (Black Walnut) - $78 1x Aluminium 60% plate - $19 1x SA profile Choclatier keycaps - $102 ( base, modifiers, and novelties ) 1x Braided Nylon USB cable - $15 Solder, Tools, Risers, Labor, etc. Total: ± $300 (Other single switch types added as needed) Testing the board I had my helper do the work here. We needed to test the board before applying any solder. Assembling Add the stabilizers first Add the plate (using a few switches as spacers) Then add the rest Solder solder solder... And test again: The casing The casing I received did to have built-in risers: So I added my own: Then Assemble (using temporary spare GMK Carbon Cherry-profile keycaps):

Compacting internal memory of SAP tables in ABAP.

How to force-free memory from deleted entries in internal tables in SAP ABAP, since the garbage collector won't touch these. This is only needed in rare occasions and/or when memory fragmentation needs to be avoided. This method will do it fast, and correctly: CLASS cl_demo DEFINITION . PUBLIC SECTION . CLASS - METHODS compact CHANGING ct_tab TYPE ANY TABLE . ENDCLASS . CLASS cl_demo IMPLEMENTATION . METHOD compact . FIELD-SYMBOLS : <lt_buffer> TYPE ANY TABLE , <lt_buffer_std> TYPE STANDARD TABLE , <ls_buffer> TYPE any , <ls_buffer_prev> TYPE any . DATA : ltr_buffer TYPE REF TO data , lsr_buffer TYPE REF TO data , l_kind TYPE c LENGTH 1 . " simple case: IF ct_tab IS INITIAL . FREE ct_tab . RETURN . ENDIF . CREATE DATA ltr_buffer LIKE ct_tab . DESCRIBE TABLE

The story of my Amiga A1200's new lease on life.

Ok, so I rummaged through my storage in South Africa and found my old Amiga once again. This was not the original one I used to have, this is an Amiga A1200, where I used to have the Amiga A500 back in 1986. A bit of history, I started out with a Atari 2600 back in 1983 (was 10 years old at the time), then saw an advertisement for a cartridge that could do programming... this concept fascinated me, but we could never find it anywhere (it was hard finding the good stuff in South Africa). I settled for a VIC-20 soon afterwards (I sold my Atari), then upgraded to a Commodore C64 soon thereafter. This lasted until 1986 (age 13) when, after countless months of pouring over Commodore User magazines, I decided I wanted an Amiga. I had the choice between an IBM compatible XT (with two floppy disc drives but no graphics) or an Amiga. Both seemingly the same price, but due to the then apartheid-era restrictions and taxes, the Amiga turned out to be very troublesome t