sneaker

Established Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sneaker

  • Rank
    Member
  1. You mean the name of the folder a new torrent gets stored in? You can still set it.
  2. But you did go out of your way to register again and you directly attacked me. (I didn't post between 2008 and 2012 and wasn't deleted, btw.) Yes, of course I argue against many points you make(why wouldn't I?), I have actually been pretty meticulous about answering any point being brought up. The only thing I get as answers are personal attacks. I do and did acknowledge that people have problems with 3.x but as I have said above: why should I care if I'm not affected by those problems? Even more: why should you care what client I am using? Stop trying to convince me that 3.x is bad, convince the developers. I see, first you insult me, then you get some of your own back and then you call me an ass. You never do. Yet you say I never see any other point of view.
  3. I argued against exactly one rule. The BitTorrent protocol does not provide anything in terms of black or white lists. In fact the peer_id element wasn't even designed to provide the client software's name or version. It is a unique id to identify one single client, i.e. a random string. People thought it would be a good idea for debugging to put the software's name and version into the front of that string but the spec does not dictate that - clients could switch to totally random or even fake ids tomorrow and would in no way violate the specs in this regard. Why do you think pretty much no BitTorrent client (even the "official" one) blocks out any "harmful clients" by peer_id? It's just some isolated trackers that do that, it doesn't have anything to do with the protocol or the idea behind BitTorrent. After your attacks you wouldn't want to embarrass me? It's rather I never requested it. Not on this forum and it remains your secret why I would want to put µtorrent feature requests anywhere else but here. How are some tracker's admins gonna get me a µtorrent change implemented? I did say it's my beer how I want to use my system however I want to but that does in no way imply I want to leech. That's like saying I want the right to own an assault rifle because I plan on killing people. One does not imply the other. (Only that fake peer_ids do not enable anyone to leech without seeding - these two don't even have anything in common.) Again: why are you telling me? I know people have problems with them but I didn't ever encounter nor am I interested in your opinion about them. They work fine for me and I don't need your approval or convince you about it. Make bug reports at the appropriate places but leave me alone. I don't have access to the source code so I cannot fix them. In case you are happy with older µtorrent versions I'm not forcing you to switch to 3.x. Again: not gonna discuss policies of specific trackers on here. You registered here on 11-24 and your very first post was personally attacking me, saying I was "crying" and mocking me.
  4. What the fuck are you talking about? I never ever asked for any leeching feature - stop making things up. As you (and I in post #183) said: if I wanted to do that I'd simply use a hacked client, not µtorrent.
  5. Clients that fake uploads also fake their IDs. You are not blocking them out because you simply can't do it. My motives are not and never were hidden. If I wanted to cheat I'd simply use a hacked client, end of story. Introducing fake PeerIDs to µtorrent would not make it harmful to swarms. You don't have to make it easy - it already is easy. So there is no need for blacklisting as there are far more effective means to do it. You brought that tracker up, not me. And µtorrent 3.0 is allowed there. Your notion of "barely" does not change that. Anyways, I'm not here to discuss any specific trackers, it is simply not the right place for that. I answered a post in this thread and mentioned I would welcome a fake PeerID feature. Again: I never brought any specific trackers up, only answered yetisyny's post where he complained about trackers to which I answered that it's almost completely out of the µtorrent team's scope except for a hypothetical fake PeerID feature. And this forum is definitely the correct forum to bring up µtorrent feature requests - where else would people do that? The question is: why do you feel this is the right place to defend your favorite tracker's policies? Why are *you* trying to bring that discussion over to a forum where it doesn't belong? And why do you feel the need to attack me for making a feature request or simply answering questions? Why do you care? I ask for features I want and will continue to do so. This forum is about the program µtorrent, not about your preferred trackers. So memory leaks, disk overloads and bad seeding/leeching performance (no problem I personally ever noticed using µtorrent 3.x, btw.) are design choices? Your problems with 3.x have nothing to do with my feature request. I don't hinder anyone from making bug reports or otherwise state what they think is wrong with µtorrent 3.x. This forum is exactly the right place for that and in fact I have even made a post myself in this very thread about something that changed in 3.x that was better in <3.x in my opinion. Just don't address your posts to me if you report problems, I'm not a developer of µtorrent.
  6. Yes! That exactly. Users should decide for themselves how they want to participate in swarms, neither their PCs nor their connections are owned by a tracker. And they are not exchanging payload with it but with each others. The tracker only offers a platform for them to meet. Besides most cheaters use modified versions of Azureus/Vuze anyways, so the lists are simply ineffective. It's like people who play by the rules and buy DVDs/Blu-Rays have to sit through the anti-piracy warnings while those who pirate can just enjoy the movie. (about BitComet: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8945/study_examining_the_myths_and_facts_concerning_bitcomet_behavior/) What are you talking about? µtorrent 3.0 and other versions of that branch are whitelisted on the tracker you mentioned. So even those admins obviously disagree with you. I never complained (or "cried" as you put it) about any tracker on here nor do I have interest in that, such discussions have no place on this forum. You should stop getting threads closed by taking discussions off-topic and doing personal attacks. And don't try to hinder me or anyone else from making feature requests for a software that's not your own, the devs are old enough to decide for themselves which requests they deem useful enough to implement and which are not.
  7. Yes, in the same way that Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Internet Explorer commit fraud and deception. And these people can continue to use those old versions as long as they like - unless they get blocked by trackers, of course. But we all know tracker admins know best, so no reason to complain, right? Others have good reasons to the current versions.
  8. I agree with you but that's a decision made by the tracker operators, not by the µtorrent team so there's not much they can do. The only thing the µtorrent devs could do would be to integrate a feature to fake its identification and thus render whitelists and blacklists obsolete. I would very much welcome such a feature, btw. Many web browsers have implemented such features long ago because of people trying to block out certain browsers for no good reason although http is a free protocol (like bittorrent).
  9. Could you elaborate on this? Will it be possible to have several torrents of the same file working together?
  10. Yes, this check can be pretty annoying. I have my files scattered over multiple drives which are asleep most of the time. Once I fire up µtorrent all drives will wake up even though I don't want to use them.