Jump to content

Customized client identification


saboteur

Recommended Posts

There is a dirt feature in bitcomet client - it has higher priority to upload files to other BITCOMET client.

So, with "customized client identification" I'll can say to other seeds/peers that "I am bitcomet", and get the good download speed.

In my ISP, 90% users seeding on bitcomet client, and 0-10 kb/sec with uTorrent vs 50-100 kb/sec with bitcomet is very serious argument...

--

Saboteur aka Sergey Kulik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there is no reason that a client should have to fake it's identity to work. It's sort of like browsing the web. Some sites only work it you PRETEND to be internet explorer, even the site works just fine in other browsers. How obnoxious is that.

I think the best thing to do is go post in the BitComet forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that BitComet gives other BitComet users higher priority?

Trust me.

Merged Post(s):

My opinion is that all kinds of faking is bad for µTorrent. It will spread rumors about faking other things as well and eventually get µTorrent banned.

Imho You wrong.

Even if someone will ban your's uTorrent client, you can identify that you are not uTorrent. So you cannot be banned.

The BitTorrent protocol doesn't discriminate which client a seeder/leecher uses, so I don't see why it should be implemented in µTorrent either...BitComet is just wrong to do what it does. :|

Yes. BitComent is just wrong, but I say, that I have own example - at my ISP, where 90% torrent-users have bitcomet, and any other client have a badly speed.

I can't say all people, to change their client, but I don't want to change my uTorrent to bitcomet.

What I must do? download with slow speed? Or have a feature to identify my client as i want?

I agree, there is no reason that a client should have to fake it's identity to work. It's sort of like browsing the web. Some sites only work it you PRETEND to be internet explorer, even the site works just fine in other browsers. How obnoxious is that.

I think the best thing to do is go post in the BitComet forums.

Most browsers and downloaders have this feature - to identify self as other client.

And nobody honor was not hurt ;)

one word. NO

simply.

Have you arguments?

I have trouble, and i think that troubles in future can be with everybody.

You say No why?

any suggestion must be argumented.

EDIT by silverfire: Please do not double-, let alone tripe- and quadruple post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previous clients that have had client spoofing have been shunned by the BitTorrent community.

In the BitTorrent community, client spoofing has always meant things along the lines of "I'm doing things wrong and don't want to fix them"

There tends to be a LOT of backlash when identity spoofing is suggested for a BT client, and all in all, I agree with it. Why bother spoofing if you have nothing to hide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, are you sure the speedthing hasn't got anything to do with the fact that BitComet uses encryption to circumvent packetshaping?

Personally, I think spoofing user-agents is generally wrong. It only causes more trouble than it is worth in the long run. If you start to fake BT-user-agents, such as BitComet, they will check if your client supports encryption or not. Or build in some other mechanism. You'll only start a coding-battle, costing time, money, memory and cpu-cycles.

Programs should keep themselves to standards and behave nicely. If BitComet builds in rules to give BitComet-clients priority over other clients, it can only end in BitComet getting lower priority from other clients and trackers banning them. How is that good for anyone? If you want to build a better app, play it by the rules and do a better job as the rest. If it is thru what you are saying, than I can only say that it says something about the BitComet-devellopers (they must be family of Bill Gates).

PS: I personally do agree in giving old versions of clients or clients that have known severe bugs, a lower priority (and in extreme case, banning them). People should keep there applications up to date and devellopers should build-in means to do so. (and report to people when a new version is out and why they should upgrade)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think BitComet's resource usage is high enough to warrant a need to make another client lie about its identity. If you want to be identified as BitComet, stick to it -- don't make µTorrent look bad. Everyone's arguments above are good enough already. Even if no one knows you're using µTorrent, it would still has a bad name just because of this feature (which I'm sure the devs -- or anyone else for that matter -- would want).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think BitComet's resource usage is high enough to warrant a need to make another client lie about its identity. If you want to be identified as BitComet, stick to it -- don't make µTorrent look bad. Everyone's arguments above are good enough already. Even if no one knows you're using µTorrent, it would still has a bad name just because of this feature (which I'm sure the devs -- or anyone else for that matter -- would want).

"make uTorrent look bad" - I did not understand why custom identify make it look bat.

For example, BitSpirit have this feature..

Most browsers have this feature, most downloaders have this feature...

I did not understand you, boys.

Ok, let's close discussion..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why custom identify make it look bat.

Because you're basically lying and makes the User-Agent field totally useless. And in the end (as I said), there is simply no use to it, ecept that applications get bloated and people confused.

Most browsers have this feature...

And it sucks. I'm a webmaster. If I configure the webserver to give seperate websites to different browsers, people start complaining that the website doesn't work anymore in older Opera-versions. Which makes their problem, my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that BitComet gives other BitComet users higher priority?

Trust me.

"I trust everyone. I just don't trust the devil inside them."

Or rather' date=' I do not trust what one person said unless it is backed by concrete evidence that supports this claim.

My opinion is that all kinds of faking is bad for µTorrent. It will spread rumors about faking other things as well and eventually get µTorrent banned.

Imho You wrong.

Even if someone will ban your's uTorrent client' date=' you can identify that you are not uTorrent. So you cannot be banned.[/quote']

The act of banning a client is extreme and should only be done as an absolute last resort for when a client is doing something that it shouldn't (either by a software bug or by something that the software and/or users are abusing). Such a ban should be a long-term temporary solution by which, if it is a software bug, the tracker administrator should notify the developer of the client and report the problem or, if it is an abuse problem, state in the tracker's page as to why the client is banned from using the tracker. Do note that a certain anime tracker bans BitComet profusely based on the claimed notion that it sends "bad data" to the tracker, of which this is classified as a software bug, not something of abuse. If a tracker is to ban a client, either by client name or by version, then the only thing the user has to do is to use a backup client and deal with it, no questions asked.

In all cases, spoofing a client in BT is not something I would like to have in a client and should never be a feature implemented in any of the clients. But some clients do support this feature and that is their perogative. However, despite that, the feature should not be used in the first place due to the fact that virtually 90% of all "known" trackers in existance are known to work and should pose no problem anyway to the users. And that is provided that the tracker administrator takes great care to ensuring that the tracker is stable and robust. Failure to do so (ie newbie trackers) will result in problems occuring and potential abuse.

Given an example scenerio, a lot of sites out there are still coded around Internet Explorer web browser, all because of the fancy-smancy features that're implemented. But that changed when Mozilla and Firefox made their way into the scene and started chipping away chunks of their market dominance. Now, if it doesn't work in Firefox, the problem 99% of the time lies in the design of the website, by which certain ways the designers coded the HTML of which causes rendering problems on Firefox and Mozilla. Firefox can change its User-Agent string to something similar to Internet Explorer. But would that fix the problem? Not likely so. Because it is the problem with the site, not the browser. I have seen sites that worked in IE and fails to work as intended in Firefox. It ticks me off to no end. Why? Because the site is too dependant on the featureset that is available in IE. And that alone makes the site very difficult to return to.

Client spoofing is bad. Any bugs that has been found and reported should have been fixed already. By that, the ban on the client should be either lifted or be based on client version. Otherwise, the tracker is likely not worth using due to it being poorly managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Needing to fake your peer ID means you're doing something you are NOT supposed to do. Allowing you to do that is bad.

If bitcomet does prefer its own peers then it sucks more then i already thought it for.

Can you help me to convince about 300-500 users to change their BitComet to another client?

In consideration, that most of them are too lazy to know more about torrent?

I brought example why I need this feature at bottom of topic...

Yes, you say that bitcomet sucks, and what? I feel better now? No. I still have problem with speed...

I understood, that nobody don't want to implement this feature, so will be.

Let's close discussion and stop to swear on bitcomet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...