Switeck Posted December 28, 2005 Report Share Posted December 28, 2005 One of the problems with banning BitComet and crew is it only changes who they're leeching from -- as not everyone blocks them. Though it wouldn't be a bad thing if they only leeched from themselves.My suggestion of retaining both connected and disconnected ip stats would allow µTorrent to track the nasties (if they don't change ip) and even SNUB them (don't upload to them) if they use the disconnect+reconnect cheat to suck more upload out of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdfreedom Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I had to come back, after my earlier ranting, and let you know that the newest version of uTorrent seems to have taken care of abit of the Bitcomet connect/disconnect problem 9with some other tweaking), at least as far as I've seen in the last 24 hours (I'm logging and looking). It's better, but still a problem, as I seem to have a few that are extremely persistant. It would be nice to have a tool to deal with these. Hopefully, this will also be in the works. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 The few persistant leeches can probably be banned by ip, if you are so inclined, using a separate program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Could always use ipfilter.dat to do it. Just add the IP in the proper format, and then disable and re-enable the ipfilter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Stuffer wouldn't help this scenario at all:http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=5181Unless the poster manually bans only the BitComet superleech, he won't just be downloading slower...he is unlikely to finish the torrent at all!...either that or give up on µTorrent and change over to BitComet v.60 or v.61, since it's obviously a much faster client in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Ok, after reading all 4 pages I'm now ready to add my 2 cents.I am for the stuffer being add and I am for it be disabled by default. I use the stuffer plug-in in Azureus. It works very well for letting me upload to more than one single peer leaching all my upload. I've used on it on large torrents before 12,000 plus seeds and 15,000 leeches. And let me tell you, my download time was cut in half as I didn't connect to any BitComet clients. And when I finished the DL and started seeding myself I had my ban list shoot way up (300+ different peers in the 1st minute.) but then the plug-in really paid off. Poor clients whom I had DLed a few chunks from that were able to finish the dl. from me in a timely manner. I seeded to 300%. So a stuffer plug-in with a remember peer list set to 512 do work wonders. I'm able to really put Azureus to use for 2 reasons:A) I don't download all those useless plug-ins only adding to the bloat. I have a very strong PC and a use a DSL connection with a 300kbyte upload (have tested it ). Since it's a DSL the UL & DL speeds don't change, they stay that amount. EDIT to update some info and to prevernt double posts<sighs> Any word on this? I'm currently getting screwed by a couple of BitComet clients uploading to me at 1kbs while taking 10 or more kbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkykharma Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I realize this is a bit of a bump, however I would like to add my support for a stuffer-like app.The arguments for/against have been spelled out fairly well (well the arguments for have).What I have noticed on a functional level however is that when I am running uTorrent with a preponderance of BitVomit (Bit Comet/Lord/Spirit) clients leeching from me, my internet speeds for any other program I run begin to lag noticeably - even though I have set conservative limits on my client's bandwidth usage.This lag does not appear to occur when most or all of the clients leeching are known non-cheating clients. Coincidence? I think not.An anecdotal argument for you, but for myself I find it conclusive.Yes to a stuffer.Oh, and keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Since this thread wasn't locked or anything, I'll just add my support for a stuffer plugin. I don't know if it's pure coincidence or not, but my download speed is more stable and picks up quicker when I have BitComet and Bitlord banned in Azureus. Only reason to stop the ban is if there are very few peers and/or those peers are using Bitcomet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 BitComet itself isn't as bad past v0.70...so you really only need to ban pre v0.7 versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Its act has been getting cleaned up in the newer versions, but I'm not sure the upload slot management is up to snuff yet, or at least I haven't seen anything in the changelog mentioning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 it hasn't improved at all, it still lies about download speeds, hammers super-seeders, has no upload slot management, and so on and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Put my vote in for Stuffer then, or my idea.BitComet has had PLENTY of time and awareness to fix their problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.