BitCoinTorrentz.com - Torrent Download Service

[Sukrim]

On a different note:
Were there already some dividends and do you have a balance sheet somewhere?

[theymos]

Very nice site -- innovative use of Bitcoin. I'm going to buy some shares.

I was going to start renting a seedbox because my ISP is supposedly going to take action against BitTorrent users soon, but maybe this will be enough. Downloading the file from your server is pretty slow, though. The ability to select only some files from a torrent would be nice.

[jago25_98]

Would like to see a QR code generated and shown for the payment address, that would be handy

Very handy site,
 appreciated

[redbeans2012]

One thing I do have to say is if you ever decide to pack up shop (it seems you're busy).  Don't just fall off the face of the earth, sell it to someone, it seems you have an awesome thing going.

[2weiX]

I was going to start renting a seedbox because my ISP is supposedly going to take action against BitTorrent users soon, but maybe this will be enough. Downloading the file from your server is pretty slow, though. The ability to select only some files from a torrent would be nice.

the limited download speed is probably due to the uplink being 10mbit iirc.
thats why i suggested moving to eg https://bytesized-hosting.com/ who can offer faster uplinks.

maybe one could also offer to limit or increas uplink priority via pricing structure if doing so.

if you're downloading multi file torrents, there should be the ability to browse the folder already.

[Sukrim]

bytesized hosting has the following rule:

We do not allow the use of torrents that are registered on a tracker that allows anyone to sign up without an invite. The rule of thumb is: If you can get a .torrent file of the server without an invitation, then the tracker is banned. This policy is enforced through our firewall as well as scanning for torrent files containing trackers that are publicly accessible. [...]

This might be a problem for bitcointorrentz, as probably people who already have access to a private tracker will also need their torrents to be seeded properly, have less fear to be prosecuted and less need to pay for such a service anonymously.

If DHT works + is allowed though, I guess they could be fine, as through Peer exchange you'd get enough peers/seeds anyways quickly then.

[Kluge]

Would it be too difficult to ensmarten the bandwidth throttling rules?

Each file downloads at 1000kb/s. This appears to be a hard, arbitrary limit. If two files are downloaded concurrently, the max speed between the two increases to 2000kb/s total, indicating bandwidth is going to waste due to arbitrary limits. I'm no IT expert, so I have no idea how complicated it would be to make ensure bandwidth is distributed fairly and efficiently using the number of concurrent files are being downloaded from the server as the condition the software takes into account when distributing bandwidth.


Rather, assuming 5000kb/s max upload bandwidth on server:
If one file being downloaded in total, file downloads @ 5000kb/s
If two files, both download @ 2500kb/s
etc.

Ideally, bandwidth should be appropriated based on IP addresses not # of files. (if IP address X is downloading 1 file, and IP address Y is downloading 9 files, IP X should receive 50% of the bandwidth, IP Y also receiving 50%, not IP X getting 10% bandwidth, IP Y getting 90%)


Again, I'm no IT expert and didn't read the many pages of replies in this thread, so feel free to tell me to shut the Hell up because I don't know what I'm talking about. 

[bitfoo]

Each file downloads at 1000kb/s. This appears to be a hard, arbitrary limit. If two files are downloaded concurrently, the max speed between the two increases to 2000kb/s total, indicating bandwidth is going to waste due to arbitrary limits. I'm no IT expert, so I have no idea how complicated it would be to make ensure bandwidth is distributed fairly and efficiently using the number of concurrent files are being downloaded from the server as the condition the software takes into account when distributing bandwidth.

This has been a problem since the launch of this service (see the first 2 pages of this thread where we discussed this). I get only around 200 to 300 kB/s per download thread (on my 100mbit downstream link) which I'm able to scale up linearly by using 10 or even more parallel threads (axel is my friend!). But I don't think these are mjcmurfy's throttling rules either. This probably comes from some ISP/router along the way when routing packets to certain hosts. mjcmurfy says that he's able to get pretty high, unthrottled speeds in his own testing:

As for your speed, 400kb is indeed VERY slow. I don't understand how it could have been that bad. My website runs on a 100mbit dedicated server with unmetered bandwidth, based in europe. I max out my 30mbit home broadband connection downloading from this server every time, without fail. It could be due to the fact that the server is located so far away in europe, or maybe you just got it on a particularly congested time. It's hard to say. But I know that I am downloading something off it right now at a speed of 2.8 mb/s.

It's a pity that this is a problem for a website dealing in downloads. It would be fantastic if this could be investigated (I offer to be a testing guinea pig if needed!)

[mjcmurfy]

The torrent client crashed about 12 hours ago, so any downloads started during this period will have failed to start. I have restarted the client and all torrents are now downloading. Apologies for the inconvenience guys.

bytesized hosting has the following rule:

We do not allow the use of torrents that are registered on a tracker that allows anyone to sign up without an invite. The rule of thumb is: If you can get a .torrent file of the server without an invitation, then the tracker is banned. This policy is enforced through our firewall as well as scanning for torrent files containing trackers that are publicly accessible. [...]

I did not notice this rule. Thanks for pointing it out. I was considering using this service but I guess that's out of the question now.

Would it be too difficult to ensmarten the bandwidth throttling rules?

...

The short answer is yes. Because I would have no idea how to go about doing it.

Your speed issues (1mb transfer limit per connection) are however probably not being caused by unfair use of the severs bandwidth. I can download from this server at high, unthrottled speeds here in europe. But I have heard otherwise from some US users. The server is on a 100mbit dedicated line located in Luxembourg and is capable of speeds up to 10mb/s.

I suggest you use a download manager to control the number of connections to the server. I suggest using 5 parallel connections if you are having difficulties with per-connection speed limits.

This has been a problem since the launch of this service (see the first 2 pages of this thread where we discussed this). I get only around 200 to 300 kB/s per download thread (on my 100mbit downstream link) which I'm able to scale up linearly by using 10 or even more parallel threads (axel is my friend!). But I don't think these are mjcmurfy's throttling rules either. This probably comes from some ISP/router along the way when routing packets to certain hosts. mjcmurfy says that he's able to get pretty high, unthrottled speeds in his own testing:

...

It's a pity that this is a problem for a website dealing in downloads. It would be fantastic if this could be investigated (I offer to be a testing guinea pig if needed!)

I don't have much control over what is causing this problem really. This would seem to be an issue with particular ISPs somewhere along the route. The only way to solve it probably is to purchase another server with better connectivity I think. The current server arrangement however is quite favorable for me and the server is nowhere near it's limit in terms of maximum concurrent bandwidth use.

I'm not really an expert in this level of network spelunking, but I will do my best to look further into this situation and appreciate any suggestions you or anyone else might have.

[Sukrim]

bytesized hosting has the following rule:

We do not allow the use of torrents that are registered on a tracker that allows anyone to sign up without an invite. The rule of thumb is: If you can get a .torrent file of the server without an invitation, then the tracker is banned. This policy is enforced through our firewall as well as scanning for torrent files containing trackers that are publicly accessible. [...]

I did not notice this rule. Thanks for pointing it out. I was considering using this service but I guess that's out of the question now.

Well, you could for example set up a tiny tracker yourself that "mirrors" some (or even all) of the trackers in that list. It would ask as a client each infohash from these trackers and then track them itself as a tracker. Technically, this would be a private tracker then and your bytesized-IP won't be listed on these public trackers. On the other hand you'd still connect to the same peers as you would if directly using these trackers... Thanks to PEX though you anyways just need to find a handful of peers in a swarm to get 'em all.

I'd recommend on clarifying the DHT issue (is DHT allowed on bytesized or not?) and continue from there. DHT already might be enough for most torrents out there anyways, trackers are often only used these days by the private tracker communities that want to sell bandwidth stats manipulation to users ("5 USD for 200 GB uploaded" or whatever).

Oh and:

On a different note:
Were there already some dividends and do you have a balance sheet somewhere?

[Kluge]

ETA: Re-checking. Seems I downloaded corrupt data twice from BTCTz, but it appears to be a fault on my end, not BTCTz's. However, the corrupted portions of the archive are in different places depending on which file I use (I downloaded the same file twice), which indicates to me that the file is probably perfectly fine on BTCTz's side. Consider this a free bump, then -- sorry if anyone read what I originally wrote and was confused.    

ETA2: Yep, problem was on my side. Think this hard drive is about finished. 

[theymos]

if you're downloading multi file torrents, there should be the ability to browse the folder already.

Yeah, but you still get charged for the files that you don't need.

[2weiX]

if you're downloading multi file torrents, there should be the ability to browse the folder already.

Yeah, but you still get charged for the files that you don't need.

I guess I didn't quite take your meaning.
I guess it's not possible to browse torrents in this service.

[dancupid]

if you're downloading multi file torrents, there should be the ability to browse the folder already.

Yeah, but you still get charged for the files that you don't need.

I guess I didn't quite take your meaning.
I guess it's not possible to browse torrents in this service.

There's is a torrent that contained 3 files I wanted to download - it is an archive of the complete works of Shakespeare in various productions - it is a 240GB torrent. The 3 files I wanted were maybe 4GB and I couldn't find them anywhere else.
I would so have liked to have used Bitcointorrenz to download these 3 parts, but obviously I couldn't (I eventually downloaded them after a week using a standard torrent client).
I'm not sure if it's even possible for users to pick the files from the torrent they want, but if it is then it would be a useful function (though I accept, it would be a rare requirement).

[molecular]

if you're downloading multi file torrents, there should be the ability to browse the folder already.

Yeah, but you still get charged for the files that you don't need.

I guess I didn't quite take your meaning.
I guess it's not possible to browse torrents in this service.

There's is a torrent that contained 3 files I wanted to download - it is an archive of the complete works of Shakespeare in various productions - it is a 240GB torrent. The 3 files I wanted were maybe 4GB and I couldn't find them anywhere else.
I would so have liked to have used Bitcointorrenz to download these 3 parts, but obviously I couldn't (I eventually downloaded them after a week using a standard torrent client).
I'm not sure if it's even possible for users to pick the files from the torrent they want, but if it is then it would be a useful function (though I accept, it would be a rare requirement).

It's not such a rare requirement. Back when I used a local torrent client, I usually "unchecked" all the file_id.diz, whatever.nfo, www.gotomysite.url and video samples so I'd only have the .mkv or whatever I wanted on no filesystem clutter.

For this application, the current way bitcointorrentz handles things is totally fine, because the unneeded files are usually small and I don't have to pull them from the server.

[mjcmurfy]

This month's dividend payment will be sent within the next hour.

Financial Statistics
Monthly revenue: 21.3658 btc
Dividend/share: 0.0213658 btc
Monthly ROI (at current share price - 0.85btc) - 2.51%
Monthly ROI (at IPO price) - 10.68%
Total ROI (for IPO investors) - 63.22%

Usage Statistics
New users this month: 69
Total users: 299
Monthly downloads: 641
Total downloads to date: 2260

Because the site was offline for the majority of last month, there will not be a dividend payment for this period. The site resumed services on the 8/4/12 and future dividend payments will be made on the 8th of the month.

Since the site started up again last month, I thought it would take some time for usage to return to the pre-downtime levels. Thankfully it has picked up pretty much where it left off, showing that there is certainly a demand for the service bitcointorrentz provides. I am very much looking forward to next month's figures.

[2weiX]

down. down. down...

[molecular]

down. down. down...

up. up. up...

[2weiX]

down. down. down...

up. up. up...

leech. leech. leech...

[molecular]

down. down. down...

up. up. up...

leech. leech. leech...

earn. earn. earn...