• LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wish people would adopt torrent V2 because that one missing 500 byte file can make the video unwatchable. With V2 each file has it’s own sha256 hash and can be checked and shared individually. It would also improve torrent health.

    • Droolio@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      The next best alternative would be BiglyBT’s Swarm Merging feature (which works similarly, and amazingly well on v1 torrents considering it only stores a precise file size instead of a hash in Vuze/Bigly’s own DHT). I’ve been able to ‘complete’ numerous separate torrents where availability was <1.

      BiglyBT already supports v2 but dunno if Swarm Merging works with such torrents yet.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Interesting. Not sure if qBittorrent supports that, I really hate switching clients :D Swarm merging for V2 should be implicit because each file has a unique hash code. So you can’t not merge.

        Another thing torrent clients could do: Every torrent that is downloaded and “rechecked” automatically generates and “upgrades” a V1 torrent into a V1/V2 hybrid torrent for sharing. And when you add a normal magnet link you could get the hybrid v1/v2 torrent from others via DHT. So theoretically only one person needs to generate this upgraded torrent and it’s not up to the uploader / tracker.

    • LukyJay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Torrent V2 allows the creator to change the files in the torrent. They can replace good files with bad files etc. It’s not a perfect solution.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        No that is not true. I’m not sure why that silly notion was spread, I’ve seen it on reddit too. Theoretically the protocol does allows for an extension for this but it’s not implemented and would need special considerations to do. And any client implementing this would not just swap files willy nilly, they’d implement some kind of permission or opt in. There are potential applications for this but not for regular torrents.