Russ Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 ok - it could just disconect off the peer after it finds out that it using bitcomet - anyway im sure theres nothing you can do except to ban the ip after giving you bad data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Even if you're disconnecting from them after finding out they're BitComet clients, there's a problem -- you'll be forced to constantly disconnect from BitComet clients!BitComet clients already are VERY agressive in trying to connect to lots of ips on a torrent. That's causing major problems as things are now. Now imagine lots of clients connect to it briefly and then disconnect from it. The BitComet clients will then go into a "frenzy" trying to find ips to connect to. On weaker trackers, it wouldn't be pretty.Even connecting but completely ignoring them (ie: not passing any BitTorrent protocol data) wouldn't work. BitComet would go into fits trying to repeatedly reconnect and handshake. After all, your connection replied once -- so it should again.The connection has to be made, pass all the usual data, but ignore hostile activity. And it also has to abide by the BitTorrent protocol while doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 yeah true it will just make a torrent slower and then end up banned theres nothing you can do except just wait till bitcomet fades out LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancutaandrei Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Im currently using bitcomet which is pretty slow.Is there any faster ones?The health of the file is about 5000% which is pretty good and gets me about 5kb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Seriously, don't hijack threads that are more than 8 months old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracon Posted May 18, 2008 Report Share Posted May 18, 2008 How is this guy, shilling for BitComet. Nothing about adware and phoning home.http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted May 18, 2008 Report Share Posted May 18, 2008 Old news? Again, resurrection with nothing new is.. bleh. People have every right to have their choice of client. Some want small low resource usage and choose uT. Others like plugins, and choose Azureus. Many like everything "in one package" and choose BitComet or other clients.That evaluation has yet to be discounted through other research, so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yman Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 I get the new version of Bitcomet and it works very nice for me. I want to know if utorent it's better than this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Considering some of the antics that bitcomet does, I would say that uT is.Especially since bitcomet still spies on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Why don't we compile a list of IP's that use bitcomet and add them to our ipfilter list. No need for new features. Just cut them off completely.This could be done in a new thread purely for the purpose.Anyone interested in blocking Comet should have the knowledge required to change their ipfilter settings and/or read how to do it.BnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Eh, that won't really work due to dynamic IPs and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 any way of banning MAC addresses then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTHK Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Those can be spoofed, sometimes the software for there own card lets users do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 While I realise a MAC address can be spoofed, how much effort are the BC users going to put in to get at your pieces? Surely they cannot dynamically change their MAC/IP every 10 minutes just to get around this. BC surely wont be able to incorporate a feature of their own to get around that (it would need to know how to access all networking cards to change their MAC addresses)?Maybe im just talking s**t, I usually do.bnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTHK Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Some software allows for spoofing, some network cards let you do it from there own settings, so it isn't too hard. I have some older networking cards that are capable of this, and my router can spoof its MAC as well. Changing my routers MAC should also cause it to be assigned a different IP address :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Maybe a dud idea then...Never mind, you can't blame me for trying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Even if you could, it'd probably be a bad idea to blanket-block all BitComet clients. Sooner or later, it will be ONLY a BitComet client sharing the missing pieces on a torrent that you want.But just because banning it is probably overkill...doesn't mean you should run BitComet yourself....Because BitComet is evil:http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=29348 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Would it be possible to use the "send have to seed" thing to determine if a newly connected peer is in fact entitled to the 3x more likely to receive mode? Surely a "New" peer would be one with no pieces.If so you would have to wait for the foreign client to send such information and the setting in uTorrent would need to mandatory.If after requesting the list of pieces the foreign client refuses, simply assume they have pieces and throw them into the "not new" pile. At the same time, if the foreign client somehow produces a falsified "null" list make some way of determining this and again put the peer in "not new" list.Just an ideaBnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted September 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Except some "new peers" that aren't in fact new like to report having no pieces intentionally. uTorrent v1.6 and later probably records some details even about disconnected peers/seeds...at least for a short while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittlefire Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Send have to seed is toggleable in uTorrent, but many clients simply don't report period. It takes a LOOONG time to get their have/relevance (right click in Peers tab, select Relevance to see how much the OTHER peer has which you don't) updated.As far as more information being stored... it can't be much more, the RAM usage between 1.6 and 1.8 is only like 12% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersnchips Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Ok but then (if it wouldnt damage the swarm too much) always offer piece number 1. If it is refused then the user has pieces (put them in "not new" list), then after piece number 1 is sent offer second piece by rarest first (standard protocol).You would follow the 3x more likely to receive in the first instance with piece #1, and the second piece only sent out if piece #1 was accepted. I realise that then all clients would have piece number 1 but in a large file this shouldn't make a huge difference. All clients want piece number 1 (unless "dont download" is enabled, but you could make uTorrent download #1 regardless), and only up to 4MiB potentially wasted!Just another idea!BnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeloeven Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 i understand everything execpt misusing DHT on private trackers. if a tracker has 0 seeds i think you have a right to search dht even if the tracker doesent allow it. unless i completely missunderstand the concept?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.