How can we get in touch with him?

I saw on BTC38.com we can request the coin to be listed and then pay some money for votes to try and get it up the list; it might be good coverage for the coin because people will see "torrent" and already know what the coin is about. I'm sure there are many potential investors who don't read the altcoin forum because of how full of shit it mostly is.

Small bug report that is fairly inconsequential:

When staking my list of recent transactions on the overview page & transaction page never seems to update. The next time I reopen the wallet the new transactions are listed so staking works (I can tell because Windows puts a notification in the bottom corner everytime I get PoS) however in terms of display nothing happens.

Also in terms of the wallet I find it times out/lags a little and I'm using a very high-specced computer (i.e. 6 core/32GB RAM/GTX 1080/SSD/Windows 10.1). Perhaps it's Windows only that lags at this stage? I mean the wallet eventually recovers and doesn't actually crash or anything, but it doesn't look like its playing along as well as it could.

Understandably these are both low-priority issues but would be nice to see them addressed at some stage)

Have you looked at the inner workings of how Siacoin proves that a host holds data that it claims?

Its something along the lines of asking for a random piece of data from what is stored and asking for a checksum of that random data thereby "proving" the hoster actually has what they say they do.

Also has anyone got any insight on how we could get this listed on a Chinese exchange?

Not sure if this was posted before? Its dated Oct 2.

https://twitter.com/Authy/status/782650608444637185

"Welcome to the family, @vTorrentCrypto"

Posted by official Authy account.

Its also interesting to note that there haven't really been any updates from JoyStream in quite some time.

For sure, it'll also be interesting to see if it's possible to only pay for specific files within a torrent--in this way very large torrents could be viable rather than the current system of having a separate torrent for each and every file. This would obviously only make sense for content that is more archival in nature and not current releases.

I think once a torrent has reached a certain amount of seeders it becomes irrelevant when it comes to the "market".

I believe there is a definite market for early adopters/seeders, but providing an incentive to older well-regarded torrents should be crucial.

As an end user I am always willing to pay money towards content which I am unable to obtain

The question is what is value of a person who is after content which is special yet not recent.

The problem with most of these solutions is that they are the same as any other solution for this space i.e. vulnerable to takedown or interference.

ZeroNet (https://zeronet.io/) exists as the best example I can find of an uninterruptable torrent search engine thus far.

Yes, ratings were something that Kazaa/Limewire used inefficiently back in the day; popular torrent sites also have "verified" users who are known to provide "good content".

I think another breakthrough may be to have the client able to ascertain information from its content; i.e. rather than relying upon the creator labeling something well it'd be nice to have some form of searching for a particular standard (i.e. 1080p MKV w/ English subtitles).

Though it's never possible to account for converted content it would be premiering to have a client that can search for actual content's information.

Yes first movers are important but its also important to mention that there exists many hundreds of thousands of perfect torrent files out there which are impecibly produced yet lack enough seeds--I suppose these are the last movers?

What is the cost/incentive to the end user to try and make these hard to find torrents available?

Also a question to vtorrent--how do seeders/leechers identify each other? Will they need to run a specific client etc?

On top of it being flexible I think its important that it should also be obvious to any user--what are they paying for, what are they getting. Just putting a textbox with "bid price" isn't enough in this day and age and doesn't form a good standard in showing users they have the power to choose a price that actually makes sense than rather just looks good (i.e. why not 0.1899756 per KB rather than 0.1000000 per KB--the price doesn't need to be some preset/idealized value but rather something that is flexible in the users mind).

Its also worth noting that the price should be in accordance to scarcity of the torrent someone is after--if it has thousands of seeds then it should be worth a very base amount, if its a file several years old or in the initial phases of seeding then its value should be intrinsic in nature (i.e. it should be worth far more to a leecher and someone who wants to seed the file than any well-seeded file)

The pricing and mechanism should be focused upon delivering 100.00% of the file to paying leechers rather than copping out at 86% because no full copies are available via known seeds.

for instance the following imaginary examples (whereby 0.3/0.01/1 doesn't represent 1:1 to VTR but rather can be just used as a potential idea)
2000 MB torrent
600 seeders and 900 leechers (0.3 per KB)

2000 MB torrent
600 seeders and 32 leechers (0.01 per KB)

2000 MB torrent
2 seeders and 32 leechers (1 per KB)

It'd also be interesting to see a bidding market whereby different content has different bidding standards (i.e. files vs audio vs video vs programs vs etc) as well as the age of a torrent (i.e. is a torrent that is 6 years old worth more/less than the same content that is newer?)

For some content the age of the torrent is irrespective of its quality, whereas in other instances a poorly made/notated torrent is of less value than a well made/notated torrent)

Perhaps in summation there should be a few contributing factors to let a user know whether their bid for a file is acceptable or not (if that is indeed how the system will function)

Also, this link, if it hasn't been posted before is something that could be very, very, very interesting for vTorrent to consider adding at some point.

https://torrentfreak.com/mutable-torrents-proposal-makes-bittorrent-resilient-160813/

If the client somehow stored something like this on its own blockchain, then you would really have something quite interesting.

The pricing mechanism should be flexible tbh, so that it is purely governed by supply/demand. I guess it'd be a good idea for the client to clearly show what the current "average" price of bandwidth is but I am mostly concerned with these few factors:

-ease of use (whereby eventually vTr is implemented in third party clients such as rTorrent etc)
-ease of search (I want it to be really really like P2P software of yesteryear so people can actually search for content EASILY--perhaps a ZeroNet implementation at some point would be really interesting)
-WoT (web of trust--how do we know what a user has posted is worthwhile, how do we know they are reputable etc? Even if its just a 5 star rating system, there has to be something eventually that allows people to know they're not going to be wasting their time in downloading a file)
-chatrooms (I want communal, encrypted chatrooms just like IRC--I want to see people to be discussing things in-client and not have to add other users via their public key or some bullshit which no one will likely use. I want Joe Nobody to install the program and instantly be able to chat with people in General #1 or similar. This is a key factor in getting people to USE the client. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen IRC via blockchain.)
-adoption incentives (I want to see people using the client for what its intended and not just bagholding or whatever bullshit is currently accepted/practiced in the cryptospace; I want to see people saying "I have XYZ content and I am going to share this because within 10 minutes I know I'll get 10 downloads)

Now its impossible to imagine all these features coming in the client anytime soon (even with/without torrent implementation yet) but I would gladly support financially the development of these ideas.

Damn I got moved down a place within the top 5 ):

Agreed.

Yes I think it should be fairly known that it would be impossible to store actual 'data' on the VTR network, rather only a record of it.

My point is that if a transaction is made every time a 512KB "piece size" is sent then if, say, 100TB is transferred within a day (in the scope of the larger picture of the torrent network this is nothing) then it would result in 195,312,500 "piece sizes". I'd say we set our eyes towards 100TB/day as the gold standard at this moment in development (or even 10TB/day) and if things progressed beyond that then adapt accordingly.

How exactly that equates to VTR's blockchain is unknown at this point, but if it indeed resulted in that many transactions that would be a whole lot of bloat/data for the VTR blockchain to handle.

I just want to imagine a project in which we are not envisioning 1TB/day (1.3 million "piece sizes") but rather looking far beyond that.

Is there a set of options that vtorrent (dev) would like us to consider as opposed to 512 kb "piece sizes" (as per your post)?
i.e.

• 512kb
• 1mb
• 2.5mb
• 5mb
• 10mb
• 25mb

I think the reality is that any torrent with a file size of ~1-100MB is a unique scenario where seeding probably isn't a big deal, but for your bigger torrents what should this so-called "piece size" be determined as?

I guess it may have more been about the 512kb "blocks".

Is each "block" a separate transaction on the blockchain? Or how does it work?

I suppose we need to look at what the average filesize of a torrent is and what the current maximum/minimum is.

I'd say for minimum we're looking at 1MB (2 "blocks") and as a maximum probably 1TB (1,953,125 "blocks")

I don't think the minimum size would ever really change (i.e. for distribution of certain text files/PDF documents which are never going to go anywhere) whereas the maximum could conceivably increase over the next few years.

Sorry is this for tokens or for actual VTR?

If its for VTR and not tokens then the entire currency would currently only hold 10TB of data which is smaller than a drop in the ocean.

Or are users able to set a price (in which case 0.5mb/VTR would be extremely high).