[slyck article]BitComet Banned From Growing Number of Private Trackers

[sixshot]

I've been keeping tabs on another private tracker I use but so far the forums didn't yield any response regarding this from the admins or staff. The members though are concerned as rightfully so since they're dependant on the P2P encryption system implemented in BC. While I question whether they truly need such a feature, I find it sad that an ISP would go to such lengths as to do packet-based throttling

[hofshi]

believe me, it's a needed feature. my ISP won't let me seed. I'm being cut off the moment my downloads complete. very frustrating!

[Atlantis]

I used to use bitComet until today. I never realised that there was so much animosity towards it which is a total surprise to me as the client interface was so good to use.

I used 0.59 as there was a problem with some people using version 0.60 seeding files (mine would stop) and there seemed to be no forthcoming patch so I moved to that version which worked well.

The only thing that I miss which bitComet had was the ability to place torrents into a certain folder. This would be useful when getting two different, but similar, items from different sites and I could then put them into my own choice of folder rather that the site's choice.

What was the reason for bitComet to get banned a lot before?

[BlackLion]

Welp. Its official. the WB now bans ALL the Comet and Bitlord clients:

Banned Client Update

All versions of Bit Comet & Bit Lord have now been banned from the tracker.

Thanks to all the questions that I recieved over the night, I did not know this was going to happen, but it did whilst i was asleep...

Not like we didnt see that one coming.....

[1c3d0g]

Good Lord... They're smacking down BitComet pretty hard... :/

[chad101]

Add another bitcomet ban to the list. As of Dec 19th, pleasuredome will ban bitcomet.

[Firon]

I saw, makes me happy.

[splintax]

all that is left now is for µtorrent to have an end to end encription as well, and Bitcomet will be officially gone.

yeah, header encryption would be nice, iirc ludde expressed interest in it but we need specs on how it works.. as boo said:

I hope that bitcomet dont take the knowledge of BT header encryption to it's grave

i guess we'll just have to hope that somebody else can work something out because i don't see BC devs telling us..

[Switeck]

I hope that bitcomet dont take the knowledge of BT header encryption to it's grave

i guess we'll just have to hope that somebody else can work something out because i don't see BC devs telling us..

My concern is the packet-shaper companies are as likely (or moreso) to reverse-engineer BC's BT header encryption before anyone else does.

Or barring that, gains the secrets from another BT client that manages to emulate it.

[splintax]

This might be wrong, but the way I understand it...

The encrypted headers can only be decrypted using the .torrent's hash. There is no way for the ISP to decrypt the headers without knowing the hash and there is no way for them to find the hash without decrypting the headers. It's a catch-22. The only thing they CAN do is filter all unrecognized headers, but I doubt that they would do that

[BlackLion]

hey splintax do you have any links towards any of that info aobut this encryption?

and well well WELL!!!! Look whos on top of the list here:

We are changing the way that bittorrent clients are recognized and allowed.

Below is a list of clients which are acceptable. If there is a client you wish to be considered please respond to this post.

Acceptable Clients

uTorrent 1.3

Azureus 2.3.0.4

Azureus 2.3.0.6

Bitcomet 0.57 (With Peer Id Patch

BitTornado T-0.3.7

BitTornado T-0.3.14

Abc 3.1

You can find the disussion thread regarding this matter HERE

where you can request the addition of another client.

These changes have been made to ensure that only clients which report your statistics correctly and perform correctly are used. This protects your statistics and security.

Thank You

Staff

apparently there is something about the Comet 0.57 that they deem acceptable, what it could be I dont know, I didnt care for that version all that much.

[sixshot]

Having missed the word by nearly a day (I had a BF2 match, sue me. ;P), I found out that FileList, while unannounced, has banned BitComet officially.

And having delayed hitting that Submit button, I took some extra minutes to read over to bitching, complaining, and whining over there... and here's what I have found...

1) They're bitching at FL in general for banning BC (and proclaims BC to be "the best client"; I think otherwise but I didn't mention what client in my response there)

2) They threaten to leave FL because of the ban

3) Those who donated say they're not going to donate anymore

4) Those who have tried uTorrent proclaims that it sucks

5) Those who are bitching about the BC ban are also bitching how they don't get "OMG UB3R D0|\||_04DZ $P33DZ!!!11!!one!" with other clients.

I have already posted a reply there regarding to all the complaints... but I doubt that any of them would bother to read or listen. A lot of them are really angry and I find it hilarious that they're complaining for no reason, to the wrong people, and about their download speeds. If you want to hear my post (dunno if it's open to public?), I can make it paste it over here.

[splintax]

hey splintax do you have any links towards any of that info aobut this encryption?

Nope. As others mentioned BC's protocol header encryption is proprietary, and all the other clients want to know how to do it but they won't tell us how. However this topic has a lot of info and ideas about the concept which I based some of what I said on.

[chaosblade]

Do paste it. Interesting reading material

[sixshot]

Pff... it's only me venting out. After a little checking, it seems the FileList forums isn't public. So I guess I'll paste what I've mentioned over there. Latest follow-ups seems quieter than usual now but maybe that's because they either all left or they shut up after my post (hah! like that'd ever happen). Anyway, here's the quote for you bored readers. Skip if you don't wanna see all this nonsense. o_o

Having missed nearly a full 24 hours of responses, I am finding myself disappointed in many of those complaining about the BC ban... especially those who directed those complaints in the wrong direction.

(a mentioned user) is one of the few level-headed people, amongst others who understands the situation, whom I feel has the point well made here. I'm also tired of all the complaining and whining about the ban. The complaints ought to be directed elsewhere, not here to the FL admins and staff. The developers are the ones to blame, for they are the ones who coded a client that doesn't behave properly when certain conditions are met.

Mind you, I have once used BC. But that was "a long, long time ago in a server far, far away." Many of you say that BC is the best client. Try to refrain from saying it again, as not everyone is going to agree on it 100%. Yes, I'll acknowledge that BC has one unique features useful for those with ISP problems. But I will not acknowledge nor say what client is #1, for it is impossible.

A lot of the complainers claim they're leaving due to this ban. Let me be frank here.... *takes deep breath*

That is the most stupid, most dumbest, most idiotic, most retarded, most unbelievably moronic thing to do.

People need to assess the situation and cope with it. Work around the ban, or get the BC developers to fix this problem. It's as simple is that. Stop complaining and making idle threats. FL doesn't cater to your every needs. You take what you need and contribute wherever possible. The same goes to those who have donated money to FL. Yes, you fall into this category too. I don't care if you donated money to them. I admire those who take their hard earn cash, time, and effort and make that sacrifice to help keep FL up. But to say that is the last donation, that's quite stupid to me and you fall into the category of those who are taking their anger out at the wrong people.

Lastly, I'd like to mention about speed. I have heard countless times how one client is superior to the other due to downloading faster. Again... I'll be bold in saying this... *takes another deep breath*

What in godly hell do you want to download so friggin' fast?! Don't you people have any patience?! Do you people always want your files downloaded "now now now, fast fast fast"? WTF is wrong with you people? Have patience, let the download finish, and be done with it. I mean, it's retarded to believe that you should be entitled to some godly speeds of 100Gbit/s simply for the reason that you have such a gigantic connection. Mind you, this lowly 6Mbit/s download speed isn't something I'd boast nor complain about... or rather, to be contrary to everyone and everything else, I rather not have such speeds and have something better for my UPLOAD instead. People should have the patience to let the download finish and be grateful for those taking the time, money, and bandwidth to share them with you. Complaining about download speed only makes me think that you're nothing more than unsatiable leechers.

That's all and take my two cents for what it is worth. It's time for many of these FL users to smarten up and start thinking for a change. Otherwise, you're simply wasting your time.

[chaosblade]

Oh my. An admin with actual brains. Too bad i cant get into filelist ;p

Well said, more or less ;]

[BlackLion]

Well Six, you certainly burned their houses down with that one, seems all on point to me. If they are quiet, its because that is the usual response when you see yourself in a mirror. I have been thru the 'Ban BC' chant before and I just switched over to the Phrogg till the patches came out LOLOL now I have a 'better alternative', actually at this stage alternative is an improper term IMO.

[Switeck]

As a continuation of the "What should be done to BitComet?" debate,

...and whether µTorrent should ban BitComet...

I am proposing 2 changes to µTorrent to encourage a fair goal:

BitComet cheats, so µTorrent should IGNORE it!

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=3531

Actually, I am not even proposing that BitComet get totally ignored -- only to reduce the ill-gotten gains that it gets by cheating.

[sixshot]

While idealistically it's not a bad idea to do so, it's generally not a good one considering how BT works. Do note that BitComet does work fine on a basic level, provided the users configure the client perfectly -- keyword 'perfectly'. So ignoring Comet users on a limited scale would be bad for the BT network as a whole. The main thing regarding BitComet is to get the devs to fix the client and make it adhere to formal and informal standards. Otherwise, in all fair game, BitComet is as good as a client as the next one (of which it all boils down to user preferences). Peer banning based on client criteria shouldn't be there on any level, no matter how bad a client is. If on a basic level that the client works, so be it. And no client should discriminate against others who have a different client, even if the client is broken in many ways.

Also, I forgot to mention that in my quote, the username mentioned in my quoted post is not an admin nor a staff... I forgot to edit that out (of which you shouldn't see it now).

[Switeck]

While idealistically it's not a bad idea to do so, it's generally not a good one considering how BT works. Do note that BitComet does work fine on a basic level, provided the users configure the client perfectly -- keyword 'perfectly'. So ignoring Comet users on a limited scale would be bad for the BT network as a whole.

I take it you didn't read my thread? The means by which I suggest to 'ignore' BitComet would in fact do nothing most of the time, at worst BitComet gets a lower priority than clients that follow the BitTorrent protocol more closely. But in the LONG run, it makes BitComet harder to use as a "hit-and-run" BT client and helps ensure that torrents stay seeded longer.

Because the 'ignoring' is done by behavior instead of client version, BitComet could be fixed and not get 'ignored'...without any changes need to be made in µTorrent. Plus, any other clients or hacks that tried to do the same would also get 'ignored'.

[splintax]

What in godly hell do you want to download so friggin' fast?! Don't you people have any patience?! Do you people always want your files downloaded "now now now, fast fast fast"? WTF is wrong with you people? Have patience, let the download finish, and be done with it. I mean, it's retarded to believe that you should be entitled to some godly speeds of 100Gbit/s simply for the reason that you have such a gigantic connection.

I have to disagree with you there. When one client consistently outperforms another, I would suggest that you try and fix the problem first of all if you really like that client (ie. µT), but if there is a legitimate problem with the client, I would definitely go for another one.

However, most people that complain about speeds and just go to another torrent client are not putting in the effort to fix the problem. Having said that, µT's default settings need a little work, IMO, since a lot of people seem to be having problems - maybe my suggestion here would be helpful.

Merged Post(s):

I read the thread, and it didn't seem like that to me. Seemed you were still allocating lower bandwidth to BC clients.

[Switeck]

I read the thread, and it didn't seem like that to me. Seemed you were still allocating lower bandwidth to BC clients.

Priority only decides bandwidth if there's contention. EVEN with contention, a low-priority still gets bandwidth...just not 90+% of it like BitComet often does! I considered dropping that because some BitComet-using people felt like that was unfair cheating...even though the way the BitTorrent protocol is set up tit-for-tat results means µTorrent wouldn't be getting massive download speeds from BitComet by doing so. It would be fair...or at least closer to fair than currently.

The other type of fix I suggested:

The snub of reconnecting BT clients is neccessary to keep a torrent well-populated. If leechers using this cheat hit-and-run, the torrent may rather quickly end up without a seed OR complete copy across its remaining peers...even if many of the remaining peers are BitComet! It would also have no effect if the other side obeyed the BitTorrent protocol.

[boo]

BitComet Reverts to Version .59

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1030

BitComet .60 was released on September 8, 2005. The release was a minor upgrade from .59, which contained two significant improvements. BitComet .59, release on June 8th of this year, supported Mainline DHT and recognition of a 'private' key. These two developments would pave the way for a series of banishments from several private BitTorrent trackers.

Although BitComet was banned from a limited number of private trackers before the release of .60, the pace began to pick up in earnest during the last few months. Within a span of several weeks, UKNova, ScT, Midnight Torrents and TorrentIt.com all banned BitComet .60 from participating on their trackers.

These private trackers implement a tight control on who can and cannot participate on their private networks. Ratios are strictly enforced, and only those who belong to the tracker via registration can download and share .torrents.

Private tracker operators allege that BitComet ignores the private flag incorporated into their private torrent files. These private flags prevent the sharing of peers with individuals who do not belong to the private tracker. It is further alleged that once the BitComet obtains a private torrent, peers are shared on the DHT network. In other words, a complete outsider can then "leech" files from those private individuals represented on the torrent file.

However this position has come under considerable ridicule, claiming that such restrictions equal Digital Rights Management (DRM.) Many have also noted the irony of the situation - those claiming theft of already copyrighted material. In addition, from a technical point of view it has become apparent that BitComet only shares private torrents under a rare set of circumstances.

In response to BitComet's banishment, it appears the developer "RnySmile" has reverted back to version .59. Comparing the release notes of .59 to .60 yields very little in terms of significant changes - at least nothing that would superficially prevent the sharing of private torrents. Both versions support Mainline DHT, the recognition of 'private' flags, and using DHT as a back-up tracker.

Never the less, when attempting to connect to the UKNova.com tracker with BitComet .59, the client was not rejected (previous attempts with .60 were.)

Unless version .59 shares enough similar attributes to .60 that would extend BitComet's banishment, it would seem RnySmile is making some effort to satisfy private torrent operators. Most of the mirrors supporting BitComet has yet to downgrade, however .59 is widely available here.

damn, now when I was happy to see people did had to convert to µTorrent'

because of the private trackers banning them, BitComet reverts bat to .59 and supports the private flag.

Well, the fact that BitComet is cheating in other ways still remains,

but is less known as the private flag issue, which was the main reason private trackers to ban it.

A funny note to this, is that people who comments to this news on slyck says its Bram Cohen's fault why BitComet's DHT doesn't work properly

[BlackLion]

all the controversy and the client's previous history should really say something.........but it probably wont... w0w....having to back up a step.....how cool is that???

[TheBear]

The rollback of BitComet does nothing for the millions? of copies of .60 that are already out there.

Can anyone say "closing the barn door after the turkey has escaped"?