The8472 Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 A complete set of torrent hashes to the Zeudo website.What - all downloads or just those with Zudeo / Vuze content (which I believe is the case)? There was a discussion here (and the post regarding contacting the Zudeo website is here).It was all downloads initially.Any evidence for that? I'm quite sure (digged through the whole changelog of the relevevant file) that there were vuze-content-checks in place from the start on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thehound Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 BitTorrent isn't owned by, run by or really affiliated with the MPAA (apart from having to take down copyrighted content from the bittorrent.com search engine, which has nothing to do with the client), and they've had no dealings with the RIAA.Can you show us any proof of that? I hope this doesn't sound too unfair. It would just make life easier on so many people, especially members of trackers still banning 1.7.2. I am not calling you a liar in any respect, but if there is some sort of proof, the argument can be behind everyone in doubt. I have had doubts on the relationship myself to MPAA, though my logs don't lie. Not everyone knows how to make detailed logs though to clear each version and it is time-consuming.i'd rather change the tracker instead of cheating.. the reason for this is that most of the tracker admins banning uT 1.7.1 are either 8-year-old morons or just morons..Who are you to criticise the admins when you obviously have not tested 1.7.1 the way tracker admins do? I held the ban on 1.7.1 on our tracker due to it not respecting the private flag on Local Peer Discovery. It has nothing to do with FUD whatsoever or 8 year old kids, It has to do with a client defect. If you have some other theory, then explain why 1.7.2 has been personally allowed on our tracker by me and not 1.7.1.just wondering is it possible to put an option in the next version, to report version to the tracker as 1.6.1 instead of 1.7.x to get around the bans, or would that be badThat would earn utorrent an instant ban for all versions on our tracker, but I don't think they would stoop that low. That's what cheat clients do and Bitcomet. I think utorrent would lose all its userbase if it behaved like Bitcomet. BitTorrent Inc is a business really and I think Bram wants a good image as it takes off. That would make a really bad mark on their reputation with tracker admins, investors, and users alike.Azureus was sending back a little more than that before they admittied that it was a "bug/feature" that they had "forgotten" to remove. I am using THEIR words here, not mine. It was for all intensive purposes - removed once it became known.I should know since I was part of the group that discovered it.And another member of that group reported it to me, prompting an immediate investigation and a preliminary ban on Zudeo(now Vuze). The results were confirmed, leading to a visit on freenode where they gave me an almost identical answer. I might have told them to remove the feature/bug if they wanted it unbanned but they all but denied its existence and the bug thing seemed to come up when they couldn't have said anything else, The decision was then made for a permanent ban,This case shows that utorrent being honest so far has paid off with me. I'm not even sure amc1 is aware of what was there as he may not have coded that part and the people in IRC seemed to want to be hush about it. They also promised prompt removal and another version was released in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc1 Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 As tempted as I am to reply to your other comments, I'm sure other people can do that instead. I will mention that dAbReAkA's comments may have been made before the bug in 1.7.1 was discovered - there was a lot of bandwagon banning going on - I'm sure some trackers banned 1.7.1 without even knowing that the bug was there.Anyway...I'm not even sure amc1 is aware of what was there as he may not have coded that part and the people in IRC seemed to want to be hush about it.I don't think what DaVrOS is referring to is the same thing that you are referring to.And since I don't know who you spoke to on IRC, or what was said, I'm not really in a position to debate with you on how you interpreted those conversations. Anyway - I do know what things have been removed from Azureus after people had pointed them out, and knowing the people involved with development, so I don't believe there was any attempt to "hide" anything in the code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thehound Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 It is exactly the same thing as I was talking about, Anyways, you wanted to discuss things with me and at first I had nothing to discuss because the proof was concrete in the older versions of Zudeo/Vuze. I have changed my mind and would like to know the following from you, since you admitted to part of it. You can do this in PM as this is for my benefit for now in deciding the client's future fate if it checks out fine now. 1) What was the gathered information used for specifically? To show this is fair, look at the statements of countless companies that disclose what they use the information for, 2) Assuming this is a bug or removed feature, what was it doing there in the first place? I need this info because I need to make a judgement call on intentions, as well as the likelyhood of this happening again.I like your attitude thus far, so I hope you will comply with answering these things. Azureus, off the record, was my client of choice for ages on Windows and Linux. Just recently has there been anything remotely able to compete with it on either platform. utorrent, of course, was 1 despite some inherant flaws in exchange for most of the features and a low footprint and rtorrent has become a great Linux client after the big round of bugfixes to the initial code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc1 Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 OK, I'll carry on this discussion offline - contact me on IRC in #Azureus or #Azureus-Dev, and we'll take it from there.(or through e-mail - you should have my address) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thehound Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I would like to publicly thank amc1 for his great cooperation in IRC and Azureus Vuze will be tested as soon as I get time for the current version. I now do believe it reporting normal hashes was a bug in the client, given the great detail he gave me about this and a couple other issues that bothered me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc1 Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 I would like to publicly thank amc1 for his great cooperation in IRC and Azureus Vuze will be tested as soon as I get time for the current versionWell, you didn't have to post that here, but thanks for that. I'm not so sure anyone else on this forum cares about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 lol it's fine; the above discussion would've been left without a conclusion otherwise xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.