Someone could build a P2P program where users plug in a torrent and watch the file/s synced locally, but share the current timestamp with P2P. Could even let connected peers (not the torrent swarm, the video sharing) vote on who the "host" for pausing and changing video would be.
The show would be automatically downloaded in advance of the stream starting. Most torrents download super fast, especially if you pick a small size one. It could even prioritize downloading the first X episodes so that you download the rest while watching.
It could even allow users to use different audio/sub tracks because the position is the only thing that matters if it's local.
In fact, this could even all be done in the browser.

I like the idea of doing it this way at least since it efficiently uses existing peers from torrents rather than making one user "super-seed" to the other viewers to use whatever local file they have to share, but that would work too.

>>1536
>In fact, this could even all be done in the browser.
I don't quite like this part by the way I just figured it could be done for tech illiterates, but they should become slightly more literate instead.

>>1535
>Surely with rhe increased availability of gig speeds and higher
This isn't necessarily true for uploading sadly. Upload speeds in the US are basically a 1/10th or less of the download speed for most people. With a surface level google search it's showing the average upload speed in USA to be 30ish Mbps. In Europe it seems to be a bit higher, but not by much. Presumably people in large cities get the best speeds, but I'm not sure what those speeds would be.
Personally my speed is whatever 1 Megabyte/second is, which means I could stream at 240p or something.

>>1538
I just megabit this shab.

What I suggest you do instead of this;

1) Rent cheap VPS with good bandwidth
2) Allow people to "VJ" the streams
3) Whomever is streaming; Prep playlist or switch between shows line using something like OBS. You can insert PVs, adult swim-like bumpers or whatever else you want in real time
4) Continue using cytube. You can host a standard web based video players on your VPS that you embed into the cytube page. It will allow anyone to view the stream from everything from low end cell phones to high end workstations. Provided they have semi-modern browser engine
5) Switch VJs every week or bi-monthly. Let people take turns are being the VJ

This makes things as easy as watching a youtube/twitch stream for viewers. It allows people with third world upstream (e.g. Americans) to VJ since they don't have to support the load from multiple users. They send data to the VPS which routes it to all the viewers. It also allows for the VPS to offer multiple tiers/bitrates. The VJ can send a 720p/1080p version of the stream. The VPS can transcode it to 360p/720p/whatever in real time. Viewers can switch to lower quality version if their bandwidth can't support streaming the 1080p version directly or they find themselves suddenly switching from high bandwidth home connection to low bandwidth cell phone connection.

Another bonus: You can keep your realtime cytube chat with all of its features. Thus allowing everyone to be social.

We were doing this in 2018 and hosted up to 200 concurrent users on our cheap little $2 a month VPS. If you're interested let me know. I'm sure I still have all the software we used around here somewhere. If not. I'll ask my friend since he's the one that threw all this together using off the shelf software he found on github originally.

We originally started doing this because we were banned from youtube multiple times due to copyright mafia.

>>1538
>Personally my speed is whatever 1 Megabyte/second is, which means I could stream at 240p or something.
With the above set-up;
>>1551
I was able to stream to 200+ users on my terrible upstream bandwidth. I have a cable connection with .05Gbps down/1mbps or so up speed. For most anime you do not need a lot of upstream to push a 1080p stream to a VPS using VBR in OBS.

I forgot to mention in the last post: This set-up also allows for proper buffering with a 15-30 second buffer. So users that drop connections can pick up where they left off.

I streamed anime (and other content) to 30-200+ users at 1080p for hours at a time using OBS. I let mpv run on one monitor, streamed the contents of that monitor using OBS and had multiple title cards and bumpers that I could switch to in real time for things like piss breaks and intermissions.

I also planned out blocks of content. I'd stream for 4-6 hours like a traditional TV broadcast with breaks every hour or so. I could also switch between preplanned content and live content. I could have talked over the content live if I wanted. Although that wasn't my thing. Some other people on the server would stream stuff like vidya or do live readings of manga and things of that nature.

You could always gather in a tiny gikopoi room and have one user stream from there. No registration.

>>1538
>Upload speeds in the US are basically a 1/10th or less of the download speed for most people.
Why's it so much lower? Testing from New Zealand, I seem to be getting about 100Mbps, which is more like 2/3rds of my download speed.

>>1556
I don't think there's any physical limitation, they just do it because they can get away with it. That's how it goes with ISPs here because they largely don't compete with each other and instead carve out territories to monopolize.
My assumption is that since most people aren't going to upload much they purposely neuter the upload to prevent select people from using it for torrenting and stuff since 99% of people would have something like a 100:1 download:upload ratio.

>>1538
>Presumably people in large cities get the best speeds, but I'm not sure what those speeds would be.
It's pretty common for fiber connections to have equal download and upload speeds. My connection has 400 Mbps for both download and upload and seeding torrents on it is not a problem.
>>1557
It's usually the cable ISPs which have bad upload speed, even in large cities with actual competition. There are like 4 ISPs available in my area and still the fiber ISP is the only one which has good upload.

>>1556
You're right. The cable company is doing it because they can get away with it and most of their customers don't know what "wifi" means and actually pay a monthly fee for it. But there is a technical reason why it's so bad: Most cable ISPs are WAYYYY over sold bandwidth wise. That's how they make projects. But there are some technical reasons why they sell packages like 1Gbps download/500Mbps up. If you can get on a business grade account sometimes you can get the same down/upstream. But usually even then they aren't equal.

Thankfully, a fiber company just ran some by my house. It's much cheaper per month and it offers 1Gbps/1Gbps for what I'm paying for much less now. The only reason I haven't switched is a lot of these new ISPs put you behind CGNAT. But I run home servers that require IPv4 address. Which these new ISPs have in very short supply and don't assign to each customer in their network. Instead, you share one IP with maybe 100-1,000 other people. Which makes things like forwarding ports or running a server at home impossible without the added cost of a VPN. Even then it isn't perfect.

I'm thinking about switching or trying them out though. If they'll give me static IP I'll jump tomorrow. Cable company is robbing me and everyone else in this area and has been for years. Because they bullied their way in and got an illegal monopoly.

>>1558
Are you behind CGNAT on fiber? Who is your provider?

>>1563
Fiber seems nice. If my ISP map is accurate (I very much doubt it is) then it might be coming to my area in a few years. Maybe.
Well, my cable company is saying that it will be providing the fiber which is making me very skeptical. No one has any choice in this area so it's not like there's any pressure for them to do it this year or in 50 years.

>>1563
>Are you behind CGNAT on fiber? Who is your provider?
Verizon Fios. Not sure about CGNAT but incoming connection works for torrent without any manual configuration.

>>1557
There's layer 1 reasons why uplink is slower than downlink in residential cable. It's not just how you allocate spectrum with more bandwidth for uplink which they do do addiontaly. The Trunk amplifier off the CMTS simply has more txpower than your modem for starters (your modem would catch fire) so the S in SNR is higher. In America where you're multiplexing whole blocks worth of customers over single coax runs, the noise is an even bigger problem on uplink.
You put those two together and you end up needing, spectrum bandwidth even being equal, to encode uplink data more conservatively. So you might get 10Gbps on one downlink channel but a mere 1Gbps on a single uplink channel.