“their bandwidth/hard drive for something else. They stop seeding”
->
“their bandwidth/hard drive for something else, but because”

“I know people with who”
->
“I know people who”

“people like you, who do whatever is within their power to seed end up being hurt by ratio systems,”
->
“people who do whatever is within their power to seed despite limited resources (like you), end up being hurt by ratio systems”

Sorry, but my grammar OCD compels me to correct my mistakes.

Should be:

“@43: A small pipe may not be able”

I agree that it is more important to seed the under-seeded swarms than the well-seeded ones. But I think *the* most important thing is ensuring that you are utilizing as much of your upstream bandwidth as possible. No need to stop seeding a well-seeded torrent if you aren’t going to be putting that bandwidth to use elsewhere. Same thing with hard drive space: don’t delete unless you need the space.

Now, you ARE fully utilizing your bandwidth and you DO need the space, so that’s fine. But most people I know stop seeding a torrent not because they want to use their bandwidth/hard drive for something else. They stop seeding because they think they’ve tried *enough*. I know people with who, even though they have a 50mb/s uplink (college lol), stop seeding as soon as they get the chance, even though they still have the file on their computer and have plenty of spare bandwidth. Or they delete the files even though they have 500GB of free space on their hard drive. It’s as if they find seeding to be a *chore*, something which they must weasel their way out of at all costs.

So while yes, people like you, who do whatever is within their power to seed end up being hurt by ratio systems, those same systems do wonders when it comes to keeping people liked the ones I described in check. And the latter group far outnumbers the former, unfortunately.

With a small pipe you can never compete with a seedbox. It’s even worse when you have a small pipe and you have to share your connection.

I will rarely seed out to 1:1 on a well seeded torrent. I concentrate my bandwidth on underseeded torrents. My rule is if the torrent has 10 or more seeds I remove it from the queue and leave the torrents that have under 10, and seed them out until they get over 10 seeds.

I feel it’s pointless to waste what little bandwidth I have on a large swarm. It’s much better to build up the little swarms.

In the end though when it comes to ratio’s, it’s just more elitist crap. If I want to go on a “downloading spree” whats it to you in the end. If I want to use a ratioed tracker and a non-ratioed, now I’m really screwed because every byte I upload on the non-ratioed isn’t going to be counted?

Everyone has hit and run, it’s pointless getting your panties all in a bunch about it and imposing draconian ratio restrictions that if not met will result in a ban. A quarter of the files I download I watch and delete in a day or two. I don’t have the hard drive space to keep and seed them, and most of them aren’t worth the bandwidth anyway, hence the reason they end up in the digital round file.

In the end it’s all a moot point. Internet 2 is on the way. That will seriously put a damper on p2p, or any other freedom on the internets.

If you don’t fuck up and go on downloading sprees while your new on a tracker those seedboxes won’t have an effect on you, on the contrary, you’ll *love* the constant fast download speeds.

Favourite quote from a forum on one of those trackers: “I bet the author is on ratio watch”. Nuff said.

the revelation at tribler is give to get does not work and the proposed ratio based currency is seriously flawed and absolutely inoperable. as Bram said, tit for tat is the currency and the system is in the logistics of swarm scale. once a torrent passes a minimum critical swarm size/speed the general laws of statistics take control of the distribution equation

if i was anti-p2p i would invent the ratio because the ratio works against proliferation of the technology by suppressing filesharing activity and swarm health. anything which limits an honest peer’s ability to enter a swarm is evil

i get the idea the guys at tribler are either n00bs or grew up on private sites. they sure as hell dont know much about the realities of bittorrent. new question for tribler: why is a leecher an enemy of filesharing? answer: he is not, there is zero downside to a leecher

(let us for one moment put aside cheaters. cheaters are not leechers, cheaters are a different topic and we want to discuss pure bittorrent economics before we discuss security)

for the whole duration the leecher is on the network he is also uploading. the larger a swarm is then the lower is the amount of data a leecher must contribute to match what he has taken. in large swarms it may be impossible for the leecher to upload anything to contibute to the swarm health because the swarm does not need another contribution

therefore the hit and run issue applies only to very small swarms and the nominal loss of a hit and run is to the upside option alone. a hit and run takes nothing from the swarm that was not already freely offered and for the duration the leecher is in the swarm he is contributing

theft of bandwidth is an issue and it is necessary for any box system to be properly protected against systemised attacks (but that is a completely different topic than the normal behaviour of the peer in a swarm). it is interesting to note that MediaDefender educated us ALL in how to frustrate an unprotected bittorrent network, congratulations to Universal, Sony and all the media cartel for funding development of systems which will bring down not only our networks but also your own future networks. i guess it is gonna be for you to spend more money to protect yourselves against the technologies which you unleashed. does it all sound so familiar? bittorrent is the direct product of the restrictive practices of an illegal media monopoly, without the excessively high pricing of media content there would have been no need for bittorrent

lesson is: restrictive practices e.g. ratio, monopoly, greed, etc. will result in epic fail

easiest way to seed new torrents thru alternative sources: download a given torrent from a public site such as tpb or mininova and seed it to the private site. note this only works if you keep each torrent seperate. all private sites will ban you if you add the tracker to the same torrent, and most sites don’t mind if you downloaded the files contained in the torrent from an alternative source. they want seeders and could care less about how the seeders got the files. just make sure the torrent you plan on seeding is exactly the same as the torrent on the private site.

and that’s all for nokio’s cool tips. have a good one peoples!

Good Tracker:
You need to seed back 1:1 OR 48 hours.
No Hit’n'Runs on freeleech.
Only freeleech on boxset (/ big torrents)
More?

It’s called freeleech. lol

On most private sites I’ve been on, there are ways other than straight seeding to bump your ratio. The basic seedbonus is one… seed for X time, get Y bonus gigabytes on your account. Otherwise, there’s the “donate X money, and get Y gigabytes as a thank-you gift” strategy. Or, of course, free-leech torrents, be it on a per-torrent basis or for limited times site-wide.
One thing I don’t like about the comparison to the economy is the fact that you can’t just make more money without affecting everybody. On a torrent site, it’s inconsequential to give users the ability to get more UL stat than they “should”.

Anyone blaming their lack of upload on their poor internet speeds needs to shut their mouth, and do the following things:

1. Leave your computer on and bt client running at all times.
2. Seed everything forever as long as you have it on your hard drive.

It really is not hard, folks.