The original poster wonders why there isn't a widely adopted peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol for live streaming similar to how BitTorrent works for file sharing. They envision a system where viewers contribute their bandwidth to distribute the stream, reducing the load on the original broadcaster and potentially improving stability and scalability, especially for events with large audiences. The existing solutions mentioned, like WebRTC, are acknowledged but considered inadequate for various reasons, primarily due to complexity, latency issues, or lack of true decentralization. Essentially, they're asking why the robust distribution model of torrents hasn't been effectively translated to live video.
Twitch is implementing a 100-hour upload limit per rolling 30-day period for most partners and affiliates, starting April 19, 2024. Content exceeding this limit will be progressively deleted, oldest first. This change aims to improve discoverability and performance, with VODs, Highlights, and Clips still permanently downloadable before deletion. Twitch promises more storage options in the future but offers no concrete details. Partners who require more than 100 hours can appeal for increased capacity.
HN commenters largely criticized Twitch's decision to limit past broadcast storage to 100 hours and delete excess content. Many saw this as a cost-cutting measure detrimental to creators, particularly smaller streamers who rely on VODs for growth and highlight reels. Some suggested alternative solutions like tiered storage options or allowing creators to download their content. The lack of prior notice and the short timeframe for downloading archives were also major points of concern, with users expressing frustration at the difficulty of downloading large amounts of data quickly. The potential loss of valuable content, including unique moments and historical records of streams, was lamented. Several commenters speculated on technical reasons behind the decision but ultimately viewed it negatively, impacting trust in the platform.
Summary of Comments ( 165 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684286
HN users discussed the challenges of real-time P2P streaming, citing issues with latency, the complexity of coordinating a swarm for live content, and the difficulty of achieving stable, high-quality streams compared to client-server models. Some pointed to existing projects like WebTorrent and Livepeer as partial solutions, though limitations around scalability and adoption were noted. The inherent trade-offs between latency, quality, and decentralization were a recurring theme, with several suggesting that the benefits of P2P might not outweigh the complexities for many streaming use cases. The lack of a widely adopted P2P streaming protocol seems to stem from these technical hurdles and the relative ease and effectiveness of centralized alternatives. Several commenters also highlighted the potential legal implications surrounding copyrighted material often associated with streaming.
The Hacker News post "Ask HN: Why is there no P2P streaming protocol like BitTorrent?" generated a robust discussion with a variety of perspectives on the challenges and existing solutions for P2P streaming.
Several commenters pointed out that P2P streaming protocols do exist, albeit with limitations that prevent widespread adoption. Examples cited include WebTorrent, Livepeer, and Tribler. Some argued that the question's premise was flawed, highlighting the existence of these protocols, while others elaborated on why these existing solutions haven't achieved mainstream success.
A recurring theme in the comments was the inherent difficulty of real-time streaming via P2P. Commenters explained that the strict timing requirements of streaming content differ significantly from downloading files, where order and completion are paramount, but timing is less critical. The unpredictable nature of P2P networks, with peers joining and leaving intermittently, makes it challenging to guarantee smooth, uninterrupted playback. Issues like latency, buffering, and ensuring data arrives in the correct sequence were frequently mentioned as obstacles.
Several technical challenges were discussed in detail. These included:
Some commenters suggested that centralized Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) offer a more reliable and efficient solution for streaming, at least for now. The infrastructure and optimization provided by CDNs address many of the challenges inherent in P2P streaming.
While acknowledging the difficulties, some expressed optimism about the future of P2P streaming. They pointed to advancements in technologies like WebRTC and distributed hash tables (DHTs) as potential solutions to some of the existing challenges. The potential for reduced infrastructure costs and increased resilience against censorship were cited as key motivators for continued development in this area.
One compelling comment thread delved into the complexities of live streaming versus on-demand streaming in a P2P context. Live streaming poses greater challenges due to the real-time nature of the content and the need for low latency. On-demand content, in contrast, allows for more flexibility in piece acquisition and can tolerate higher latency.
Another interesting discussion focused on the potential of blockchain technology to incentivize participation in P2P streaming networks. By rewarding seeders with cryptocurrency, it might be possible to create a more robust and sustainable ecosystem.
In summary, the comments offered a nuanced perspective on the state of P2P streaming. While acknowledging the existence of such protocols, they highlighted the significant technical hurdles that have prevented widespread adoption. The discussion covered various aspects, from the challenges of real-time data delivery to the potential of emerging technologies like WebRTC and blockchain. The overall sentiment reflected a cautious optimism, acknowledging the difficulties while recognizing the potential benefits of a decentralized streaming future.