Peer to peer youtube

Since Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are run by kikes and any clone of these services would be just as susceptible to the same problems why shouldn't people create an open alternative?

To replace Youtube, I suggest creating a format where people can create torrent-like things that contain content, then upload the necessary information to find the video to a giant peer to peer ledger of these files. Since this platform is open multiple clients could exist to search these files based on tags the uploader provides, or even interest based websites that collect videos from the ledger.

The uploader would be incharge of managing all of the peers watching their videos, so if they want to delete their upload they simply stop letting people find other peers. The uploader could also host comments if they wanted to.

Monetization would be done by fusing the videos with links to things like Patreon pages, paid sponsors, or just regular shilling.

If people live on really nigger Internet you could have a 3rd party upload service manage your videos for you.

What a retard.

plus
>using the word nigger
gb2

I'll make the logo

why...?

>tech illiterate.
Stick to Sup Forums where they'll value your conspiracies and racism.

Popcorn time proved that the technology is possible this just does the same thing but changes to format to be more friendly to having user generated content.

This already exists

I did a paper on RLNC a while ago and found a few peer-to-peer video streaming platforms like this, although they were all designed for realtime use (e.g. think twitch, not youtube)

There's nothing preventing peer-to-peer data storage, though. The hardest thing to get right is policy. One thing you could do is divide up resources according to popularity, but do you really want your storage being wasted on pewdiepie videos?

Well the only videos you would be saving are the videos you would be watching.
When you install your client you agree to set aside something like 30gb of space, and after some sort of time period of say a day where you haven't been asked to upload it to anyone it is automatically trashed.

and for watching on shitty devices you could establish some sort of reward system, where you are only allowed to watch the high quality video if you agree to upload, and otherwise you are stuck at 480p.

Some of these rules could be controlled by each individual creator.

Won't happen for the same reasons that all those "p2p CDNs" have failed to get anywhere. Won't happen for part of the reason that Diaspora (remember that bad acid trip?).

Home broadband and cellular connections are overwhelmingly asymmetric. That means available upload capacity is far smaller than download and the limits of people who could watch the video vs. people who can provide will never be anywhere close to 1:1. Even if the connections are symmetric (like many GPON deployments) the network connectivity at ISP level is still not geared for it after operating in an asymetic world since the 1990s. For the better part of a decade CDNs have been shoving kit in ISP data centres as an incentive to cut down on the amount of pressure on external (both peered and transit connectivity) to deliver more content faster to you greedy, cat video and porn watching fucks who won't shut the fuck up about your video buffering.

Oh! But BitTorrent! I hear you squeal. But one of its speed boosts is the fact that peers do not download in order, blocks are downloaded in no real order - so you can't start playback until you have the lot. As for their streaming offering: who the fuck knows. It doesn't change the fact that the 1:00 cat video clip that you thought might shift 5Mb into your shitty 500Mb/month data plan actually went through 50.

I deal with delivering large amounts of video for a living. Even the incumbent CDNs out there are fucking useless at copying bytes of fucking data as fast as possible, what the fuck makes you think you can do better?

>what the fuck makes you think you can do better?
I don't, but obviously technology changes, and it seems like now it is getting pretty close to possible. Everyone in my town now gets 100mb down and 30 up, and AT&T
is rolling out gigabit in all new houses, and my friend who lays cables for them is telling me the whole town will get it.

Really makes ya think.

in 10 years if everyone in the West gets gigabit would any of those problems you posed really matter unless we all need 8k 60fps video for everything?

That could actually work.

1. If you watch a video, store a local copy
2. Whenever somebody requests a video from you, increase its “hit” counter
3. When your space runs out, delete the video with the lowest number of hits

That way you have a poularity-based, self-regulating system where everybody watching a video also contributes to its storage; while also giving us the illusion of choice when it comes to what content we want to “support” (i.e. content we watch). Possibly you might also want to estimate global popularity to make sure you prioritize deleting highly-popular videos over rare videos, so that the rarer videos don't end up getting destroyed.

torrent+DHT is already capable of it, just need to make a shiny point-and-click app like Popcorn Time and market it towards normies. That's the hard part for autists like us.

Anyway, basing it on RLNC would be pretty awesome, and you could also do something like Freenet where you cache a smaller amount of data along the transmission route (so if a peer is constantly forwarding traffic for a video, it will just cache it).

How does popcorn time manage to work?

>so that the rarer videos don't end up getting destroyed.

It would be designed so it is up to the uploader decides when their videos get destroyed. Of course you could obviously make a copy of the video and reupload it yourself. So I see no such need for this feature.

If this new system sees videos more frequently vanish, then I imagine we might see more people take in interest in archiving things.

The future of freedoms is already here.

Small user base leeching off public torrents.

> Really makes ya think.

No, it makes my fucking eyes roll. Home connectivity is always over provisioned since normal people (or their computers) aren't around using it 24/7 - so just because you can fucking hit speedtest (which is rigged) and get some "value" that you scored 98/27 on your 100/30 connection, doesn't mean it'll work if AT&T have a > 50:1 provisioning ratio, and you won't solve things by attempting to make your shitty p2p network "ISP aware", AS's don't announce IP addresses like you think they do,

Technology doesn't need to fucking change to fix this - ISPs need to fix their fucking networks first, but they won't because they're greedy fucking cunts and so are transit providers. If Akamai are shoving servers in fucking cell towers to push porn out to mobile phones, what the fuck does that say about the state of the network? If Netflix and Google are offering boxes to ISPs to take load off, the fuck does that say? If no fucking ISP, CDN or content provider is actively using any p2p technology in production, despite having combined billions in R&D money, what does it say?

p2p video in this world is unviable.

fuck off to your designated cuck forum ((())), nigger.

They attempt to make the client biased towards "first" blocks. However on any torrent without a large enough number of peers, your chances of getting a peer willing to offer you them falls off a cliff and you have to wait. But it's free, so people are prepared to wait several minutes for something that will amuse them for 2+ hours.

Great idea OP,

I have a few questions - What action are you going to take to move this project forward? What programming experience do you have?

wtf is that

look into ipfs

Do anyone know where the picture is from? Also send me link

T H I C C
H
I
C
C

Zeronet

>If Netflix and Google are offering boxes to ISPs to take load off, the fuck does that say? If no fucking ISP, CDN or content provider is actively using any p2p technology in production, despite having combined billions in R&D money, what does it say?

It would be in those companies interest to keep things centralized because then a free p2p rival wouldn't be viable. Everything piece of news I have been exposed to has made me of the opinion that ISP's are investing resources in researching better ways to get people's money, not provide better services.

Since when does asking a what if question on an anime forum require me to have any experience?

So u gonna throw the ball like this and swing the hips like that. The key is in the hip movements u gotta get the energy from it AND transfer them to the arms then to the balls

all i heard op say was ass

>ISP's are investing resources in researching better ways to get people's money, not provide better services.

And this is why this shitty idea won't work. Because no large ISP is going to change their network for p2p. Sure, hear about the odd exception on TorrentFreak, but they are exceptions.

>Since when does asking a what if question on an anime forum require me to have any experience?

It doesn't. I was under the impression this was something you were interested in pursuing.

Those hips cannot be real

Call this guy a nigger

3 must give a really good fuck

Do I get a cut of the profits since I'm hosting videos?

I think youre lost friend
>>/r/the_donald

Some back of the envelope calculations:
Lets assume worst case uploader scenario is a 0.5 mbps up plan.
Worst case scenario they can continuously pump out 0.3 mbps.
An average 10 minute youtube video at 720p and 30fps should not excede 150 MB.
They could upload it in its entirety in just under 70 minutes.

So worst case scenario is 70 minutes of upload per 10 minutes of watched video at modest settings.
Basically for solid streaming you would need at least 8 dedicated uploaders to not experience major stuttering.

Or in other words to deliver one 720p 30fps video to one user at comfortable 2.5-3mbps you need 8-9 worst case uploaders maxing out their upload bandwidth (stream exclusively to you).

Of course anyone not on utter shit plan (4mbps upload plan) should be able to supply one 720p 30fps stream, and some may even be able to support a couple of such streams concurrently.

This would boil down to viable if only a small number of creators were using this service and people would leave the program running 24/7 and everyone would use 720p 30fps.
However, supporting anything like YouTube would be completely impossible. If ISPs deploy more symmetrical options in the future, sure, but that's probably decades in the future.

You're the one who's lost, faggot.

t. not the one you're responding to

IPFS is basically a p2p hosting of anything