traxen Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Allowing this destroys the purpose of private trackers.Then what is the real purpose of private trackers?Forced sharing to 1.0 in ratio ... that works in a theoretical model. But in the case as with my friend.. he pretty much stomped on people with lower bandwidth. Overseeded and enjoyed his time in glory more or less. And he's not alone.. If stuff dissapears slightly faster it's not a great loss. It will either be found in the request section if its maintained in your specific trackers. Also .. it will appear on public trackers in most cases.What makes private trackers great is really the categories, the maintenance, forums ... and things that drives the community forward. In this case we differ.. since I have a higher belief in that it will still work, even if there are people that comes up from the underground to snatch a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Regardless it's not the fault of bitcomet that it is being patched.Did you actually post that?? ROTFLAre you SERIOUS?? I have watched this silly thread from the start and my friend you are deluded. It is precisely Bitcomet's fault that its being patched LOL if they didnt push the envelope like they have they wouldnt be getting banned. No bannings no patchings as they wouldnt be necessary. Back in the day they were bringing down poorly coded trackers with abusiveness and now that the climate has changed (No more suprnova and lokitorrent, no youceff) they wont go along with what is now really the norm for a LOT of bt'ers, private trackers. After half the bt world banned their client, they chose to go backwards. The 'current' build is 0.59.......again....where do they go from here.... 0.60??? ......again????....... that is a BAD number for them. Let me put it this way....what other client (BitLord dont count) has been mass banned as the Comet has?? Sure I enjoyed its 'advantages' but now its name is mud among the private trackers, and instead of correcting the issues like any normally developed client they went back in time. That says something to me. Either ALL they did was allow bc to bypass the priv flag in the 0.60 release (knowingly, you dont code that by accident) and were forced to backpedal in response OR they dont really have an answer (unlikely, whoever codes that aint a rookie) OR they dont really care (possible, im speculating here but may be finance motivated). None of which are really good responses. Whose fault was it again?? How about this, if only private trackers are banning the Comet, why need the patch? The Comet's users USE private trackers. The Comet dev wants ppl to use his client? He at some point has to make things right with priv trackers so they will remove the bans so his users will use his client freely. Or wait for the patches. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Few examples why privte trackers are better =1) torrents have a longer lifetime on a private tracker2) quality of the swarms are better.3) stricter rules which gives private trackers less crap4) the quality of the community is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meltingsmoke Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 BitComet is only been banned for private trackers, and yet every BitComet user I hear from whinning how private trackers suck anyway, so wtf is the problem? If you don't like private trackers, don't use them, the BitComet ban isn't affecting you anyway.About the spoofing patchs, I can tell you from first hand knowledge, they don't work, and you should not use them. You will get yourself banned from the private tracker your using it on, and possibly others, many of the big sites share ban lists...uTorrent is great, forget about BitComet and move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 They can already detect the latest patch, it's worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 If Comet users ONLY used pub trackers they would not be getting banned from private ones. Yes, Comet users use priv trackers and THOSE are the ppl being slowed down by all this.There are 3 basic reasons why a private tracker would suck:1. The tracker dont have what you need.2. Questionable tracker management (heavily regulated uploading, hard to keep ratios up) (This approach CAN work IF your tracker is specialized AND good)3. You (rhetorical) dont want to share.Other than that I cant see why a tracker would suck other than it just sounds really really good to say that something sucks. Unless they ban you. For a bad (leecher-type) ratio. Or for using a patched client that is banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezy Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 after reading all this i really wanna get of BitCommet and start using utorrent, but i have to wait untill NAT traversal is implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Most of it is untrue and promoted by private trackers to discourage use because they loose income and it's amazing you all buy it.Stop shitting on about private trackers making a profit. Many trackers, maybe even most, are run by decent individuals that only accept donations to keep the tracker alive - not to turn a profit. Turning a profit off warez is almost universally seen as wrong.1) You can share torrents with friends who wasn't so lucky to get accounts.You can do that without circumventing the tracker's rules. Make your own torrent file.Do you want me to give you a utorrent client which identifies itself as Azuerues or whatever you like. I can run it up for you in 10 minutes.Yes please, I would be interested to see you do this without the source, it's apparently quite difficult to reshack µT since the executable is compressed.. I know you said it's not impossible, but I'm more or less calling out the fact that you're trying to sound smart. I also know that software with better protection has been cracked, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're probably not a cracker. I've played FEAR and HL2 all while using the comet and my PC is 3 years old and nothing spectacular. It however does have more than 256M of ram I call bullshit. Most 3-year-old PCs can't run FEAR or HL2 at all, let alone while using BitComet. Post your computer's specs please, you must have upgraded it a fair bit.I'm not familiar with this stuff, but I believe anyone can edit their outgoing HTTP header, so yeah, you're probably right about the fact that any client is vulnerable to client ID faking.Correct. It's trivial to do so with a local proxy, but it requires a bit of work unlike patching the client directly.In theory µTorrent could be hacked the same way, though I've read a couple sites about hacking client ids that said doing it for µTorrent was "too much trouble".Not only that, but why would you want to fake µT's client ID? traxen: what are you on about where you start talking about your friend's 2mbit connection and such?BitComet is only been banned for private trackers, and yet every BitComet user I hear from whinning how private trackers suck anyway, so wtf is the problem? If you don't like private trackers, don't use them, the BitComet ban isn't affecting you anyway.Yep. Good idea. after reading all this i really wanna get of BitCommet and start using utorrent, but i have to wait untill NAT traversal is implemented.Why do you need NAT traversal? Performance will be better if you forward ports through anyway. Why don't you just do that, are you behind a firewall of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezy Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 there's a vpn with one external ip and about 50 to 60 folks sharing the same external ip (internal ip is 10.16.x.x ranges), the router is with the isp and we dont have port forwarding privelages, only hope is bitcomet cause it supports NAT traversal, when/if utorrent supports NAT traversal everyone on my network will be switching to it, also dunno if bitcomets packet encryption is helping aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 ah, I see. Well in that case, NAT traversal would help a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 there's a vpn with one external ip and about 50 to 60 folks sharing the same external ip (internal ip is 10.16.x.x ranges), the router is with the isp and we dont have port forwarding privelages, only hope is bitcomet cause it supports NAT traversal, when/if utorrent supports NAT traversal everyone on my network will be switching to it, also dunno if bitcomets packet encryption is helping aswell.That still will give problems. I don't know about µT, but many p2p programs don't like many connections from a single IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daT Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 BC is a leech client, pure and simple and has no place on private sites. Either you (the staunch BC supporters) are blindly ignorant, or you're simply unwilling to accept this as fact. This arguement is so old, and so over. Get over it. I dropped it, and moved to µtorrent and am happy I did so. And yes, I only use private sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 IMO, if it's a leech client (and I'm not just blindly following here, I believe that it does prioritize BC etc. but I'm not about to go spouting it out without proof everywhere) that doesn't mean it should be kicked off private sites. It should be kicked off all sites. Public sites don't need any more leeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larkspeed Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Traxen, I think the real issue private tracker have is that they loose income when they loose control as with a decentralised model. Most private trackers welcome donations and bombard you with emails and PM's every bloody day about special VIP offers and what not. if you do not need to be a member then there is no chance you will ever donate to them or contribute to their success by seeding and therefore promoting their site for more donations. No tracker really gives a shit about privacy, it's just a smokescreen excuse. It's all about the $$ from donations that drives all this. If privacy was a concern then no logs or records or whatever would be kept of what was downloaded etc.Well thats the biggest pile of tripe i have ever read.I run a private tracker but I do not do it "for the money" I do take donations yes but the cost of me initialy building the webserver my tracker is on and maintaining that server is more than i ever recieve in donations from my users.I do not "bombard my users with emails" about speacial offers and VIP rankings. I do have a donate page and a VIP rank for people who do donate but if they chose to do so that is up to them with no prompting or promotion from me.I run a private tracker because I believe in sharing what you download. people who don't share get automaticly banned and can not use my tracker people who do get higher ranks and get left alone it's that simple.For the record BitComet is banned from my tracker. Why? because it cheats thats why no other reason and as soon as they fix it so it stops cheating a couple of mouse clicks and my tracker allows it again.I used bitcomet but it's cheating ways wieghed on my concience so I switch to Azureus which in the end I did not like because it hogged resources. I use µTorrent now because it's fair and it does not choke my system like Azureus did.I will agree with you that a small percentage of private trackers are in it for profit but only a very small percentage when you look at the total number of private trackers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Larkspeed: thanks. Nice to hear from someone who actually has first-hand experience.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 BC is a leech client, pure and simple and has no place on private sites. Either you (the staunch BC supporters) are blindly ignorant, or you're simply unwilling to accept this as fact. This arguement is so old, and so over. Get over it. I dropped it, and moved to µtorrent and am happy I did so. And yes, I only use private sites.Don't waste your energy, no matter how many times this has to be told again and again, some fanboys simply won't get it. Sad, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idle.newbie Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Klaus_1250: BC can adjust incoming connections per IP(default:1), and outgoing connections per IP(default:3), maybe it's why ppl saw BC is more aggresive connecting/disconnect.VPN are very common in P.R.China, the isp does not have enough IPs for every user, they have to use clients with NAT Traversal like BC/BS/BL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormhole Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 just found this on the peerlist..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 There's a bit of a bug with the detection, it seems to catch legit 1.2 clients as fake... Dunno if it was fixed in b400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormhole Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 oh really..?!? phew.. glad to hear that..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Using b400 and I'm seeing µTorrent 1220 on one of my downloads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 1.2 is the one with the fake issue, not 1.2.1 or 1.2.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I've also definitely seen µTorrent 1220 before... :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormhole Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 1220 is fine.. check the screenshot.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 I know it is, I'm saying the problem is with identifying 1.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.