Previous thread: >>60616130 Not sure what private tra

File: 1495990539953.jpg (738KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 2448x3264px

first for lasereyess legs

>>60628471
>no news
Fuck you too.

>>60628513
whatever albino

Shit OP

what a disappointing OP
look at the time and effort that went into the previous OP

>>60628522
bleh, it's alright
not every OP can be as good as the last one

File: 13945856.jpg (83KB, 525x450px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 525x450px

>>60628471
>no subject
>no news

File: 1368375106029.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

Did private trackers help you to lose your virginity?

I think the wide array of 'bohemian' and 'counter-culture' and 'avant-garde' etc music, film and books I have read thanks to private trackers did. I was able to advertise them on online dating sites. Got to meet some really interesting girls

>>60628471
OP, if i saw you, i'd spit in your mouth

>>60628549
>meeting girls

>>60628549
Sarek that you boi

>>60628471

How many times has this OP image been used?

Someone make a proper thread please.

File: 7559.jpg (59KB, 344x326px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 344x326px

>tfw was about to fill Y********y's request
>tfw now i wont
baka...

Is TCH a meme?

>>60628194
I'd be willing to bet you've never actually encoded with XviD. You've probably never even encoded with x264.

retrowith.in
idontexist.me
xbtmusic.org
h4h.xyz
oppaiti.me

>>60628559
lewd

>>60602765
>>60602827
>>60602855
>>60602914

After asking Blutopia if they use MD5 hashes directly, I've been told they use a different codebase entirely since the beginning of the new site, called "UNIT3D".
"XBTIT Blu-Edition" being an old project for the "coder" who made the site. Further clarifying if this were actually used, insecurities like this would have been fixed, implying there was never any intention to use MD5 for password hashing.

>>60628678
Stop with le OT hidden meme. It's not funny and will never be. You're just making an ass of yourself.

>>60628669
Maybe share your point instead of insinuation something useless like that?

>>60628471
OP deserves ebola edition.

News
>The thread that was promised, wew lads >>60616217
>The origin of the anti-Kyle revealed >>60618180
>Captain Jean-Luc Van Der Beek declares jihad on /ptg/ >>60620768
>sarek alpha as fuck >>60621177 >>60621192
>albino is a cuck >>60622861 >>60622954
>Inspector Sherlock Anon press release on Lasereyess secrets >>60628078

>>60628694
the******bay

>>60628626
Who cares if he is an idiot, anon? A buffer is buffer.

Is hdb worth it if you only dl remuxes?

>>60628741
no

>>60628706
XviD does not equal bad quality. It's just not as efficient in space to quality ratio as x264. It's not a bad codec, just worse than x264 / H.264.
>>60628626
What is the real name of that user?

>>60628741
Yes because HDB internals look just as good as remuxes. It's also good for epeen and getting into chink trackers.

>>60628817
>Yes because HDB internals look just as good as remuxes. It's also good for epeen and getting into chink trackers.
But I dont dl encodes just remuxes

Is Blutopia worth it? Or is it curry shit?

>>60628829
Join AHD.

>>60628829
There's no reason keep employing that practice if you're on HDB.
>>60628846
It's a shitty /ptg/ meme that everyone will forget about by the end of next month

>>60628846
It's the best new tracker I've joined in a long time. Other than that, might want to wait a year or so.

>>60628851
That's the worst advice you can give him. AHD encoders are not nearly as experienced as HDB ones. Their releases are bloated as fuck.

>>60628881
you're bloated
AHD encodes are great

redpill me on bluetopia

>>60628916
it's born from the ashes of BluRG and Blu-Bits
BluRG had good internals for full BDs

>>60628916
kill me

>>60628881
They do a lot of remuxes though.

>>60628881
HDBits has some of the best encoders, but also some that are absolute shit (CtrlHD). All in all I'd still say HDBits > Awesome-HD

File: 2017-04-16_01-05-15.png (77KB, 168x200px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 168x200px

>>60628549
met a girl at a bar and told her i was on hdbits she instantly put on "fuck me" eyes and we went back to my place, it was only then that she decided to grill me on the rules and "do not upload" list on hdbits. surprise surprise, im not on hdbits, and when i couldnt answer her questions she spit in my face, stormed out and threw rocks at my house and wife's car

>>60628916
The new HDBits.

>>60628881
>That's the worst advice you can give him. AHD encoders are not nearly as experienced as HDB ones
I dont download encodes.... reeeeeeee

You faggots will regret shilling for Cucktopia once it dies in a month.

>>60628968
get on BeyondHD and PrivateHD if you're after everything new, don't expect to find old shit though
otherwise AHD

What's the point of Awesome-HD? There are so many better movie trackers.

>>60628977
>get on BeyondHD and PrivateHD if you're after everything new, don't expect to find old shit though
>otherwise AHD
Im already on AHD and can get on HDB anytime I want. I dont need these curry ass trackers. I just want to know if HDB is worth it if I only download remuxes ffs

>>60628933
how are the ratio rules on there? is it easy? should I sign up?

>>60628991
Then no. HDBits has no proper remuxes, they have this retarded rule that all audio on remuxes must be FLAC.

>>60628978
>movie trackers
>not HD only
name them, there's only HDT and HDB
>>60628991
like everybody fucking said nigger, there's not as much remuxes on HDB as AHD
curry trackers that are fast to release remuxes can be useful

>>60629013
t. not on HDB
that has changed

>>60629013
That's been changed, and also how is that not a "proper" remux? It's lossless audio straight from the disc. Are you a retard who thinks DTS HD and FLAC are different?

>>60629040
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

I will not forget this slight, ever.

>>60629020
>not HD only
Does that mattter? It's 2017. Every movie tracker does HD.

AHD is pointless and should die.

>>60629061
not every tracker has internals that are actually good

>>60629061
>AHD is pointless and should die.
tehlarsie is not pointless.

>>60629082
>tehlarsie is not pointless.
True. When AHD dies we can re-home that sexy kitten very easily though.

>>60629053
>Are you a retard who thinks DTS HD and FLAC are different?
t. delusional freetard

DTS is a fully featured codec including metadata for advanced sound profiles and even has object audio extensions like DTS:X. FLAC can't recreate any of that, and "just" transcoding DTS to FLAC using your gay freetard tools would lose all of that information.

It would NOT sound the same but of course you probably listen with a 500 line ALSA config for your 5000 line mpv config that you use with your 15 year old thinkpad.

>>60628471
Could I pay my way into Biblotik?

I have money, but I don't have time.

>>60629213
how do i be you

>>60629213
buy books then

>>60629233
Rare books are relatively expensive compared to paying your way into a tracker I would have thought?

Perhaps I am wrong?

apollo.rip tracker came back online at the EXACT same time as notwhat.cd tracker!

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME!

~ Inspector Sherlock Anon

>>60629213
invites-shop.com/en/bibliotic-org

>>60629262
>Rare books are relatively expensive
What rare book are you looking for? Bet you its on libgen and not on bib

>>60629142
REKT

>seeding 400+ torrents
>uploaded 200MB in a fucking MONTH
fuck RED fuck zed fuck all of this

>>60629300
>ratiocucks will defend this

>>60629266
wtf

>>60629300
Are you one of the people that was never on WCD?
There were just as many ratiocucks complaining about WCD and no upload.

File: 14964634453.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>60629300
no, fuck you lyle

File: 1488205330871.jpg (87KB, 954x954px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 954x954px

>>60629300
I will find you.

>>60628881
Let me guess: the moment an AHD encode is even one megabyte smaller than an HDB one, it's "bitrate starved shit"?

>>60629142
None of this is true, they're both lossless codecs and decode to .wav. Audiophiles are truly gullible

File: 1414792772949.png (364KB, 564x1086px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 564x1086px

>>60629142
DELET THIS IMMEDIATELY MY DUDE

>>60629517
You can't transcode Dolby Atmos or DTS:X to FLAC without losing the object based metadata.

File: 1439557535548.jpg (44KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 396x385px

>>60629300
fill requests my pajeet friend
you need to spend money to get buffer on RED
I suggest either buying WEB releases or buying secondhand CDs off discogs or ebay to fill those 1GB requests
I'm at 50+GB and /setforlife/

>>60629587
The guy was originally talking about remuxes on HDB, which require DTS:X and Atmos to be left alone. Only DTS-HD MA and TrueHD were converted to FLAC. Both of those don't have "advanced sound profiles" that require the original codec. They decode to .wav, and they are lossless. FLAC is the same exact information at a smaller filesize.

>>60629618
>50GB
>/setforlife/

lmfao, I've got 2 TB on pedro's and i wouldn't even call that /setforlife/

>>60628626
Sure thing, buddy. None of my requests are realistically fillable. You most likely found a fake.

>>60629753
That's because it doesn't have content.

File: 1442315647974.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

>>60629753
>A 2 TB buffer that you don't use it
>look at me guys!
good job ratiocuck

File: tracker tiers.png (9KB, 944x117px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 944x117px

Is it true that HDT > AHD?

>>60630098
if you're after TV and full BDs then yes

>>60630107
Wasn't AHD used as a stepping stone to HDB in the past?

>>60630098
The only thing that AHD does better than HDT are their invite forums. Literally nothing else.

>>60630156
perhaps, that's not the point though
>>60630173
HDT does shit encodes

>>60630183
HDT and AHD are on par of each other if we judge by using PTP's GPs as a standard.

>>60630255
>PTP GPs
>good
no

>check bakabt
>0 uploading
>check server
>it hasn't restarted
>rtorrent didn't stop
>check bakabt again
>5 uploading
wtf

>>60630279
>random anon's judgment
>any good
What a laugh

>>60630255
>HDT and AHD are on par of each other if we judge by using PTP's GPs as a standard.
HDMaNiAcS is the most curry group name ive ever seen

pooping is a privilege not a right :)

>>60630338
Doesn't matter, their encodes are still on par with AHD's.

File: 1489949343070.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Can someone post that list of good quality encode groups that's on PTP?

>>60630323
>uploading things on a public tracker that isn't public anymore
At least use RUT like a man

>tehlarsie|afk is now known as tehlarsie
/ourlarsie/ is in ptg irc boys

>>60630323
>ba**bt
>>>/t/ and stay there

>>60630534
i guess i'll have to remind you that all the HDMaNiAcS encodes use the same settings

>>60629792
Not sure about the source but spectrals are legit. Thanks for proving my point, you're an ass.

>>60630534
>Doesn't matter, their encodes are still on par with AHD's.
ya thats just not true

>it's a one of your harddrives accidentally disconnects when seeding episode

>>60630835
Compare them and post results or just stop talking. This encoding group fanboyism is bad even for PTG standards.

File: 57196604.jpg (10KB, 266x239px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 266x239px

>tfw youve been watching that obscure series one based user was uploading for two years
>tfw he suddenly stops for a while
>no alternative exists
What do, guys?

>>60630892
The burden of proof is on you, you made the statement first.

>>60630915
pm the guy

Who's not snatching rukia's rips after all of that autism ever again?

>>60631020
I am kinda afraid he will tell me to fuck off. I mean he probably has some reason for it...

>>60628471
the last OP was exceptional, this OP is poor. what a rollercoaster

>>60631030
Dunno why I'd deny myself good rips.

>>60630915
maybe leave a message in the torrent comments of the last upload?

>>60630755
I didn't mean the spectrals. Which request exactly would you be able to fill? Because there is no way you found one of them unless you physically own the recording (which I highly doubt).
Also, if you are not sure about the source you can't fill the request anyways because I'm asking in all of them for a specific source.
I'm not an ass and you are full of shit.

>>60631098
Life can't be about fucking supermodels and snorting cocaine 100% of the time.

>>60631030
Why would you grab his rips in the first place? He only has 1-2 decent rips of some shit animu with no alternative.

>>60631156
>Not sure about the source but spectrals are legit.
>not recognizing a pooploop meme
Not that anon but how new are you?

>>60631289
neon new

>>60631289
die already sadistic you filthy piece of shit

File: 1492907051158.jpg (93KB, 700x552px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 700x552px

>>60631341

>>60631156
You're the guy from /mu/ with ***YS album in his chart, right? I thought you were nice until that animemebits thread.

>>60631289
Yeah. What's wrong with what I said though? See it more as a warning to potential qBit users than simply bashing qBit for the sake of it. Also read my last post on the previous thread. Mind you I'm actually using qBit right now and have been for a few months already.

>>60631451
I think you quoted wrong person.

>>60631483
Yup

>>60631451
This was meant to >>60631419

File: 1494447920867.png (586KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 600x600px

>>60631341
>caring this much about music tracker staff
do you need assistance?

>>60628471

shit OP.

>>60631533
worst shit OP after that legendary one

File: 2017-05-28_22-50-01.png (27KB, 1488x226px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1488x226px

>>60631619

When the fuck is pooloo tracker coming back up

>>60631728
LMFAO fake sarek troll

>>60631739
Oh shit it's up

>>60631748
WTF SPAGHETTI

>>60631748
wtf is that thing

>>60628940
when did ctrlhd become shit? early on, people were getting off on ctrlhd (and esir) encodes.

wtf i thought me pen0r pictures were safe with spaghetti
i feel betrayed

>>60631748
gave me AIDS by just looking at it

>>60631748
I've seen some fucked up shit, but that is the worst yet.

post moar

>>60631802
CtrlHD has been getting trumped on HDBits from day one, but they hit rock bottom when BoNo was encoding for them.

>>60631741
I'm always on my IRC
irc.nostre.am (6697)
#lobby

>>60631877
wow, bono should stick to singing and song-writing.

>>60631887
fuck off fake sarek

>>60631887
>irc.nostre.am
why'd you leave discord for 3 months then :(

>tfw someone snatches my 10 GB torrent on RED
damn, nice

>>60632217
Way to mark yourself man :O

File: Celty.gif (163KB, 385x269px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 385x269px

>>60632217
Link?
I have a gift for you

>>60631977
I left discord because alienhippy was in the channel I frequented. I wont be anywhere losers hang out

>>60632277
Call the cops idgaf

>>60632291
https://redacted.ch/torrents.php?id=5892&torrentid=467362#torrent467362

>>60632313
>wont be anywhere losers hang out
>posts in /ptg/
sure thing bubba

>>60632313
AlienHippy, forever a retard.

>>60633282
Why do people care how others watch movies?

>>60633282
why are you posting this?

Well you did it /ptg/, you caused PTSD on several members of AB just with a dumb threat that nobody even here is autistic enough to even go through with it.
The funny part is those two animebytes users actually think you're "freetards"

>>60632217
>>60632327
what is it, i don't want to get /marked/

File: file.png (37KB, 597x748px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 597x748px

>>60633450
Yes - Tales From Topographic Oceans [1973] [Album]

>>60633483
>blu-ray exclusives
Dafuq?

>>60633483
fix your screen nigger

>>60633351
This is all you need.

File: 62897772.png (10KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 284x284px

That Jello guy gets btfo by based A***no. Pretty funny how he cant defend UT without shitting on QB and doesn't even give any examples except for "its sucks!".

>>60633627
because it's just baby duck syndrome, he doesn't have a point he just hates the idea of anything different

>>60633627
I gave examples in another thread.

>>60633686
I don't hate anything for being different. I don't hate on Deluge and I don't hate on rtorrent for example. I just think qBit is very unreliable. Keep in mind I'm using both uT and qBit at the same time, so what you are saying doesn't apply to me.

>>60631887
you clown, it's: irc.ifelce.com:+6697

There is a discord relay that him and emm talk through there :^)

>>60633804
>I just think qBit is very unreliable.
it's not
you're wrong
now post some more on the forums so we can make fun of you

>>60633830
qBittorrent lacks when compared to uTorrent 2.2.1. Some examples of this are slower speeds and worse connectivity. This is evidenced by the client refusing to connect with some peers (both when downloading and uploading) and having more erratic download and upload speeds. This was when comparing both clients using identical swarms with the clients using identical settings and obviously forwarding ports. qB also lacks when compared to uT because it won't let you choose the location of particular files (not torrents), and it won't let you mass edit tracker urls. Some bugs are that qB will show an incorrect number of torrents in each tracker tab, and wrong number of peers as well (in some trackers, not sure if all of them, it will count the snatched number of torrents as peers in the peers tab). Some other thing that I think were already fixed, is that sometimes the tracker would change the location of the contents of a torrent to the default location, and if you are unlucky, it will start downloading again because the torrent content can't find itself in the previous location.

>>60633839
btfo

>>60633839
I doubt you're using identical settings. Most people don't touch 99% of settings available in both utorrent and qbittorrent (at least in libtorrent, no idea if qbittorrent has access to those) and they aren't the same by default.

Although personally I wouldn't use either because both clients are slow as fuck.

>>60633839
>Some examples of this are slower speeds and worse connectivity
>This is evidenced by the client refusing to connect with some peers (both when downloading and uploading) and having more erratic download and upload speeds
>Some bugs are that qB will show an incorrect number of torrents in each tracker tab, and wrong number of peers as well (in some trackers, not sure if all of them, it will count the snatched number of torrents as peers in the peers tab)
All of these are objectively wrong.
So all you have is not being able to mass edit tracker urls which is not an issue unless you like to reset your announce everyday

File: file.png (31KB, 564x358px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 564x358px

>>60633914
p. easy to do that anyway
one liner with gnu/linux

>>60633958
I stand corrected then, he made that entire block of text and didn't provide a single reason to not use qbit
Are you a reverse qbit shill yellowpiss?

>>60633911
>I doubt you're using identical settings
If your comeback is that weak you might as-well not comment

>>60633958
won't work if the announce urls aren't the same length
l2bencode f4m

>>60634003
except he's right
you're testing two things with different configs
you're intentionally crippling one client just to prove your point right

captcha: calle calle

>>60633911
I did use identical settings (not the same as default settings!). Besides, some of the issues that happened to me while using qBit shouldn't ever happen regardless of which settings you use. That's just plain bad development.

What do you mean slow? In terms of GUI, I found both of them to be pretty responsive compared to Deluge, for example. I can't complain about those clients being slow really.

>>60633914
They are not wrong. I tested them myself with the conditions mentioned above. I have had troubles downloading torrents from users who used qBit and troubles uploading torrents while using qBit (to name another example).
But whatever, if you don't believe me, there is nothing I can do. I really, really wanted to use qBit as my main client, it was an amazing client when I first used it, until I started to be aware of all the bugs and had to ditch it as my main client.

>>60633958
Good point.

>>60633989
The guy you are replying to evidently fixed one of my issues with qBit, but I'm talking about real life experiences with the other issues and I have nothing to win or lose for praising/bashing any client. Do like Wikipedia says, assume good faith.

>>60634003
Maybe he misread identical as default?

>>60634019
>states he uses identical settings
>I doubt it

>>60634019
I'm using identical configurations. Seriously, if your argument relies on dismissing everything I say as a lie you might as well stop replying right now.

>>60633989
>Are you a reverse qbit shill yellowpiss?
what does this even mean
I was just pointing out it was easily done. It still can't be done with qBit.
>>60634014
The urls are always the same length, what are you talking about? And the announce url is one of the things that is actually in plain text when you look a a torrent file/.fastresume
Why wouldn't they be the same length?

E.T. RED hits 1 mega? It will be within 8 weeks, right?

>>60634053
you're not
you probably haven't even bothered testing anything
you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge to the point where you can't even fix something like announce urls and you expect me to believe you used those two on the same exact conditions?
at the very pest you had the same number of max connections on both
that is if you were actually trustworthy which you're not

what so great about ptp that hdb kg combination doesnt have?

>>60634129
>what so great about ptp that hdb kg combination doesnt have?
gazelle.

How do I use Transmission's label feature? I can't find it.

>>60634129
BTN, PTP and RED is the new /trinity/

>>60634030
Slow as in both are bad seeds if you have a decent connection. qBittorrent is better if properly configured, but fuck properly configuring it I have Deluge.

>>60634103
>when you have to assume everything the other person says is wrong to prove yourself right
lol

I did test both clients with identical settings on identical swarms while forwarding ports. The swarms I tried where Linux ISOs, single seeded torrents on OT, and medium seeded (5-10) torrents on OT. This was around 2 months ago. If you don't believe me, just tell me, and we can stop this discussion.

>you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge
>to the point where you can't even fix something like announce urls
You just demonstrated your complete lack of reading comprehension.
I said you can't mass edit announce urls on qBit (turns out I was wrong, sure, as there was a way to do it but not natively with the client).

>>60634161
>Transmission
>features
oh lol

>>60634204
Makes sense then. qBit has it's upload speed caped at 100 MB/s though.

>>60634218
someone who doesn't even know how you can edit announce urls without a gui cannot be trusted to configuring utorrent and qb with the same settings
you're just too technologically impaired to be able to do anything with your computer other than open facebook

if you have proven something provide evidence otherwise you're making a claim

>>60634252
Anyone can edit an .ini file. That doesn't mean you can use qbit to mass-edit torrents.

>>60634252
>someone who doesn't even know how you can edit announce urls without a gui
not like you can just sed bencoded data anon...

>>60634304
>Anyone can edit an .ini file.
Anyone except (You) apparently

>>60634252
No. I only said you can't mass edit announce urls in qBit, and that's still true, regardless if it's possible to edit them manually outside of the torrent client.
Do you want me to record my computer screen while downloading the same torrent with uT and qBit while recording how I'm configuring the same settings for both clients and forwarding my ports and then uploading it on here? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's too much effort.
I won't bother replying to your personal attacks anymore.

File: .gif (239KB, 500x419px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 500x419px

>>60634314
What are you trying to tell us.

>>60634333
>Do you want me to record my computer screen while downloading the same torrent with uT and qBit while recording how I'm configuring the same settings for both clients and forwarding my ports and then uploading it on here? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's too much effort.
So you have no proof.
You have just a claim, one that is very unlikely to be true based on qbit being based a recent version of libtorrent as opposed to a old version of ut.
That's not even to mention that your method is not really scientific, the servers you were leeching from didn't have the exact same load on them when you were testing the OT torrents and the linux ISO test tells you even fucking less.
I bet you weren't even analyzing your network using some sort of tool while doing that.

All of that leads me to two possible conclusions:
Either you are actually retarded and thinks that test proves one client is better than the other or you are trying to justify in any way that you can that your personal choice of clients is the right one

>>60634167
tz

>>60634341
>What are you trying to tell us.
when anon said 'without a gui' I assumed they meant a find replace a la sed. You cant do this on bencoded data such as torrents

>>60634462
>the servers you were leeching from didn't have the exact same load on them when you were testing the OT torrents and the linux ISO test tells you even fucking less.
Yes, within seconds if difference between downloading from each client and the measures were pretty noticeable already.

>Either you are actually retarded and thinks that test proves one client is better than the other
It proves one client downloads and uploads faster than the other and that one client connect better to some clients than to others.

>or you are trying to justify in any way that you can that your personal choice of clients is the right one
I'm using both uT and qBit at the same time, if qBit were truly the best I would be using as my main client right away (in fact, it was my main client for around 2 weeks to a month).

>>60634586
>You cant do this on bencoded data such as torrents
You can.
Open a torrent file in a text editor right now.

>>60634587
>Yes, within seconds if difference between downloading from each client and the measures were pretty noticeable already.
It doesn't matter if it was within seconds, you don't know the sort of load the server was in.
You have a variable that you are not testing and you cannot control or account for in your test
Your test is flawed and its results are not relevant let alone accurate.

>It proves one client downloads and uploads faster than the other and that one client connect better to some clients than to others.
no it doesn't see my original post and reasons above

>>60634597
>You can.
>Open a torrent file in a text editor right now.
Please look up bencoding before you continue to spread this uninformed myth

>>60634618
>It doesn't matter if it was within seconds, you don't know the sort of load the server was in.
Therefore, it's impossible to prove a client is faster than the other. Cool.

>>60634623
Are you saying I can't open a torrent file right now and change the announce url unless I mess with bencoding?

>>60634597
He's half right, you can certainly edit the announce url via sed, but then try using that torrent in your client. You have to change some of the bencoding as well to reflect the new length of the announce URL.

>not just using a streaming site
lol nerds

>>60634644
>Are you saying I can't open a torrent file right now and change the announce url unless I mess with bencoding?
You could if the announce url's were of exactly the same length and didnt contain contiguous letters. If you dont meet these criteria you'll break the torrent. You should not be raw editing bencoded data

>>60634644
See >>60634645

Is it worth joining Bluetopia on the off chance that it does end up ok or is it just a waste of my time?

>>60634652
>>60634645
I understand this but it it literally not a problem ever.
All of the private trackers I've seen have the same length announce url if you ever change it.

>>60634674
>literally not a problem ever
wrong
even moving from http to https fucks things up

>>60634674
>I understand this but it it literally not a problem ever.
>All of the private trackers I've seen have the same length announce url if you ever change it.
You're then relying on the random passkey to not contain contiguous characters. Just do it properly and use a bencode editor.

>>60634674
http://tracker.com
https://tracker.com

Now you have to change the bencoding. Keep in mind though, you can still change the bencoding with sed, you just have to know what you're doing. It's not a simple substitution.

>>60634639
>Therefore, it's impossible to prove a client is faster than the other. Cool.
No it isn't
It is quite simple if you want to run the test on LAN and test for speed you just need two computers in a network.
And it is also quite simple albeit costly to test over the internet as well you just need to hire a few dedicated servers and test it.
You should also use your own tracker to that test since you want to control every possible variable.

>>60634735
Fair enough. I will just go with the odds that the fact that all the time I tested speeds between uT and qBit the fact that qBit was always slower wasn't a coincidence. What are the odds? If I tried 10 times, the odds are already lower than 0.1%. Seems like a safe bet to me.

>>60634780
you can try one million times and your results are just as unreliable
if you want more reliability you have to control the variables you're not testing i.e. server load, tracker response

>>60634816
A 0.1% of unreliability. If that's not enough, you can try making the test 20 times, or 100 times, and if the results are still the same, the conclusion is clear. There is no reason why the variables you mention would benefit one client over the other so the odds of either client being on a "bad streak" are the same.

>>60634840
>A 0.1% of unreliability
The more you keep pulling numbers out of your ass the less I believe you ran any test at all.
Your reason is flawed for the same reasons I've explained for the two last posts.
You can spend the rest of your life running this test, the way you were supposedly running, and even then your results will still be absolutely meaningless.
If you do want to run the test again control the variables, put your money where your mouth is.

And record it if you want anybody to believe you.

>>60634816
if the experiment is repeated enough times those variables don't matter

>>60634926
yes, they do
the tracker variable for instance might be always favoring the 1st or 2nd client you're running the test with EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Meaning that you can literally run the test until the heat death of the universe and the results would still be flawed.

I have no idea why would someone be so set into this belief that client A is faster than client B and so unwilling to put it to an actual test.

>>60634916
Odds of uT having faster upload speeds than qBit: 1/2
Number of the times the test is run: 10
Odds of uT being faster than qBit: (1/2)^10 ~= 0.1%
That's where that number comes from.

The variables you mentioned above are random, so the method I'm using here to prove if it's a coincidence or not are valid.

>>60634926
Exactly, but he's too stupid to understand probabilities.

>>60634961
I did actually test it but you keep dismissing my tests as lies because they directly contradict your current beliefs.

>>60634961
if that's the case then that torrent client is effectively worse for that tracker. If you care about all trackers you can try with several trackers to reduce that source of error.

>>60634987
>if that's the case then that torrent client is effectively worse for that tracker
That's not what I said, the tracker could be favoring your second or first client communicating to it regardless of what client it is.

>>60634983
>I did actually test it
no, so far you claimed you have tested and you claim the results have been in your favor
>The variables you mentioned above are random
They are not

>>60634983
you'd need to run the test many more times to consider the rest of variables random, 10 is a ludicrous number.

We need to setup a test and prove once and for all what you autists are arguing about.

File: paulie.jpg (21KB, 377x325px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 377x325px

>>60628471
You're on my shitlist now.

>>60634983
Can you provide any evidence at all that you even ran this test?

>>60635047
I don't need to prove to anyone else that I have done the test and the test shows that one client is better than the other. Why would I lie? If qBit was indeed better and the tests were to show it I would be using qBit instead, but that's not the case.

If they are not random then the logical conclusion is that the tracker literally works better with one client instead of the other lol

>>60635059
Testing it 10 times already reduces the odds of a coincidence being lower than 0.1%.

>>60635061
Feel free to do it yourself.

>>60635082
I don't think so.

>>60635105
>50% chance goes to 0.1% after 10 tries
no it doesn't m8

>>60635105
>Testing it 10 times already reduces the odds of a coincidence being lower than 0.1%.
No, because at such a low number the possible unknown variables would have a significant effect in the final number.
Statistics is not that easy, that number doesn't even have an error.

File: NoHomo.png (28KB, 366x205px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 366x205px

>>60631778
I dindu nothin', Azathoth asked a guy, not me.

>>60635118
50%=1/2
10 times 50% = (50%)^10 = (1/2)^10 ~= 0.1%

>>60635135
Those unknown variables are random, they don't benefit one client over the other.
Sure I could calculate the error, but you get the idea.

>>60635170
>they don't benefit one client over the other
see >>60635047
just the tracker variable alone might destroy the entire test unless you alternate the order of the clients.

>>60635047
>>60635184
>>60634961
>>60634816


So exactly how many people on /ptg/ are under the impression you get the files from the tracker?

>>60635184
>unless you alternate the order of the clients
What a difficult thing to do.

>>60635209
i don't know
how many people are dumb enough to not understand you get peers from the tracker?

<~poorboy> Gattina, https://i.imgur.com/bkrlrVD.jpg
<@Gattina> Sacramento kitties \o/

Captured for the millionth time we see here a wild Italiankitty casually suckin poorboys epeen.

Lets watch as the autism grows.

>>60634983
>Odds of uT having faster upload speeds than qBit: 1/2
>Number of the times the test is run: 10
>Odds of uT being faster than qBit: (1/2)^10 ~= 0.1%
If you knew anything about statistics and sample sizes you would know that what you just said is completely wrong and utterly embarrassing.

Just did a test with ut 2.2.1 and the latest qbit.
One with linux ISO and one with a file on my LAN.
Qbit was faster in both cases.
12.5s faster on the ISO and 8.3s faster on lan.
Same exact settings

>>60635220
Which is done on torrent load, and any difference is going to be insignificant unless you're downloading a 16KB file.

>>60635231
LOL

>>60635248
are you being intentionally thick?
specially right your IP just informed the tracker your finished the torrent and your stats the delay between you sending the request and getting new peers might matter a whole fucking lot

>>60635105
>I don't need to prove to anyone
If you're gonna make bullshit claims, yeah, you better prove it

>>60635318
let me simulate his post

>it's not bullshit claims, I've tested it and it's true
>it's your problem if you don't believe it just run the test yourself
>why would I lie if I use both clients

>>60635239
I'm downloading the latest debian iso with uT and qBit and it took qBit 2 times more time to download it than uT.
As usual, identical settings, forwarded ports, etc.
qBit averaged 600 kB/s and uT averaged 1.2 MB/s. The winner is clear.

>>60635318
Does the above count as a proof? Because I really don't want to record my screen while downloading the same torrent with both clients to compare speeds etc.

File: SSarek.png (114KB, 288x384px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 288x384px

I'm here to save the world

>>60635378
>latest debian iso
>600 kB/s and 1.2MB/s
unless you have a 10mbit connection your issues are way more serious than simply lying on the internet

File: 1488294016343.gif (948KB, 400x262px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 400x262px

>>60635388

>>60635397
Yes, I do have a pretty slow download speed, no need to remind me.

>>60635378
screencap the settings
at least lie in a way you might convince one or two guys here

>>60635410
I don't want to take around 20 screenshots just to prove this point, sorry. Why don't you make this same test and share your results? That way you can convince yourself instead of having to rely on my own statements.

File: 1480350683688.png (603KB, 734x604px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 734x604px

>>60635388
SOMEBODY

>>60635378
>>60635428
>>60635397
something is fucked in your qbit config
no matter what client you're using a 10mbit CANNOT ever avg 600kbps on a well seeded torrent.
so you better screenshot your configs because if you're not lying I will solve your qbit issues right now.

File: qSLOW.png (47KB, 1792x393px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1792x393px

>>60635239
Seeder is on qB, too.

>>60635445
Sure, just give me a throwaway email or whatever and I could send you my settings tomorrow. I really don't want to bother posting 10 screenshots and merging them into one just to post them here.

>>60635452
>hiding the speed limit
you could have just edited the image you know
>>60635466
just upload to an album on imgur right now

File: qSLOW2.png (46KB, 1774x390px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1774x390px

>>60635452
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.
uT downloaded this ep at 3.1MB/s. qB stuck at 300k.

>>60635471
No speed limit.

File: 1397552623081.png (96KB, 441x495px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 441x495px

>mfw the winbabbies argue about their shitware

File: .png (2KB, 314x177px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 314x177px

>>60635466
just please tell me you don't have these on
>>60635489
sure thing buddy

File: Untitled.png (59KB, 989x725px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 989x725px

>>60635489
*pic

It says that in the other pics too. Download limit infinity.

>>60635493
All disabled.

>>60634983
Since these fucking retards don't understand statistics I'll point out exactly how you fucked up, pajeet.
Each test is independent so there is a 1/2 chance of EACH INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE of uT being faster than qBit.
When you look at (1/2)^10 you are not looking at the percentage of times that uT is faster but instead the percentage of times that uT is ALWAYS faster. There is a 0.1% chance that uT will be faster in ALL 10/10 TESTS YOU PERFORM.

Please for the love of god learn statistics before spouting this bullshit. And to the rest of /ptg/ GET YOUR FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER. Only 1 person called out this fucking retard somewhat correctly. You dumb shits just spewing "Muh sample size" and can't actually point out where he INCORRECTLY APPLIED MATH. You stupid fucks don't deserve to be on private trackers.

Should I join TVV or MTV? From what I can tell, MTV has more content but TVV is listed higher on the wiki. Any specific reason why?

>>60635493
>being trolled by /g/ while supposedly trying to help people
you're too good and stupid to be here
get out

>>60635512
Yes, that's exactly what I was measuring. The odds that uT was faster in ALL tests.

>Please for the love of god learn statistics before spouting this bullshit.
Please learn how to reading comprehension.

>>60635517
Additionally, is BTN recruitment still on TehC?

File: Untitled.png (33KB, 781x623px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 781x623px

>>60635493
I had it checked for uTP, but no limit means nothing's applied.

>>60635517
TVV has more content actually, just less torrents. TVV has more than half the series BTN does. MTV isn't anywhere near that.

File: qSLOW3.png (55KB, 1685x459px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1685x459px

and finally done

>>60635512
you are not joining my research team with your idealized coin model.

>>60635552
I'm already on a research team though!

>>60635531
if utp is enabled, TCP connections are throttled in proportion to utp speed. So if you're getting shit speeds from utp you'll also get shit speeds from TCP regardless of how much the seeds are capable of doing.

Fortunately in deluge you can configure this by diving into the internals of libtorrent, but the easier thing is to just disable utp completely which I used to do in the distant past. I have it enabled on my deluge now because I finally went over the configuration for the sake of uploading properly to shitters with utp enabled.

If I was going to post on 4chan, i'd be using the trip code i used last year

File: Untitled.png (74KB, 1644x916px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1644x916px

I left each of these running for one minute.
utorrent, qBit

>>60635595
hello sarek

>>60635595
SAREK!~

>>60635595
fuk off larper

>>60635595
hello sarek

>>60635568
There is one seed, so what would it be throttled in relation to?
But you do seem to be right. I can get 3MB/s out of him with it disabled. So this means that qB's default settings are broken.

>>60635676
Your UTP download speed. I dunno if the seed is sending TCP packets or UTP ones, but if it's TCP the client should, in theory, throttle because UTP speed is 0.

>>60635686
That should only apply the limit to uTP connections. Normally they wouldn't be throttled. It can do TCP easily.

>>60635564
What are you researching, anon?

>>60635595
Sarek how do I get to sit next to naked women casually browsing facebook on their iPhones?

>>60635595
are you going to bring nostream back sarek?

>>60635730
Huh, what? No. UTP connections have no rate limiting. They are allowed to go as fast as they can, utp packets just yield to TCP packets. So if you have mixed UTP/TCP traffic, UTP speed will be garbage.
That's why the client limits TCP speed proportional to UTP speed.

Look, UTP is utorrent cancer and I don't really want to look into it more than I've already done so I can explain the intricate mechanisms of it, just understand that it's cancer and you're making me cry as a seeder, because I need to enable UTP.

>>60635595
when will varmag irc be back sarek?

>>60635776
irc.varmag.com is running but nobody is on it

>>60635804
no it hasn't

>>60635826
im connected right now

File: Capture.png (29KB, 666x539px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 666x539px

>>60635766
same settings don't have that effect in 2.2.1.

>>60635877
why are you lying?

>>60635595
sarek please re-start nostream but make it super exclusive. Blow the curry APL and red out of the water

>>60635512
> there is a 1/2 chance
the logic was off at this point anyway.

>>60635885
I know. If you haven't noticed, libtorrent isn't utorrent. They are nothing alike. There is probably no TCP rate limit connected to UTP in utorrent at all, or it works better. Whatever the case may be, I don't give a shit.

Doesn't make UTP any less cancer.

>>60635898
I'd be down to do that if people wanted me to, but I doubt many would use it. I'm just being real.

>>60635928
No one can fuck with Gineviv bruh. Bring it back.

>>60635911
You are right, the chance was always 1 for uT being faster than qBit.
;P

>>60635928
1) Would you be willing to work with other admins (like the OT admins)?
They may be shit people, but they are good for tracker secuirty

2) You should implement 32Page's ratio system.

There is no ratio. Instead all torrents cost "Inkdrops:. I don't remember, but I think its 1 Inkdrop is 1 MB, so if you want to download 5 MB track that costs you 5 inkdrops.

Every hour you seed you earn some inkdrops back (first 2 days you earn nothing, than you earn 0.25% of file size per hour, up to a maximum of 0.75% per hour after you seed for like a month). Essentially the tracker becomes ratio free and encourages long term seeding. It doesn't matter if nobody downloads from you as you still earn inkdrops. Theoretically it should replace APL as the "second" music tracker.

>>60636001
1. RED
2. NotWhat
3. Apollo

There is no way a tracker with such a shit bonus system would become the second best music tracker.
Nobody would upload there on the first place, no incentive at all to contribute.

>>60635964
Thanks dude
>>60636001
I'd be down to work with whoever wanted to work with me despite any 'history' I may have had with them as long as their motives were pure.

While NoS was up and running, I was all about making user suggested and up-voted changes to the traditional seedboxcentric ratio based system, so i'd be up for that.

I put a poll up on the current https://nostre.am forums about it. If there is genuine interest, i'd be completely down to do it.

>>60636073
did you enjoy the last thread?

Only god can judge me now.

>>60635595
Sarek, please help me get a girlfriend

>>60636073
I'll work with you. Together we can build a site that might one day even rival the likes of H****Z***.

>>60636073
Honestly if you are to make a poll you should probably make a strawpoll and post it up on reddit. Users have to register on your site and I don't think many of them will do to vote.

There'd probably needs to be some brainstorming of how to seperate nostream from the current music trackers. I just want NoS back for the aesthetics

>>60636150
This. I don't want to register on the forum either

File: 1493101420900.jpg (120KB, 821x797px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 821x797px

>>60636073
sarek you're the man!

>>60636073
If you want to make the audio equivalent of OT i would be down with that

>>60636167
Sarek is the most /pure/ of the tracker staff/ex-staff

poorboy = Brian Gius

NEW
THREAD

>>60636207
>>60636207
>>60636207

NEW
THREAD

>>60636207
>>60636207
>>60636207

NEW
THREAD

>>60636314
'no'

>>60636324
Move over when the bump limit is reached. I just didn't want /ptg/ to get cucked by another faggot edition.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers/comments/6dxmps/what_are_some_alternatives_to_private_trackers/

Idiot confesses to the cartel about their torrent history and gets globalled

>>60636508
thanks for the essay, kiddo

>>60636360
But Anon, your edition IS another faggot edition

>>60636596
t. failcuck of the year

>>60634665
Why don't you join PTP?

>>60635595
Sarek and Rukia are both the heroes we didn't deserve.