traxen Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 b00, please ... dont even go there.And about the HDD, thats a very likely place to find CPU consumption. Cause if you cant watch movies when running bc... then its either a low grade pc or you are doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 RePo, I have used BitComet and many of my friends has done it to,it eats your system resources.And about you saying that you can patch µTorrent,well give it a try and show us some proof.I think you just came here to start flame wars. If you don't change your attitude, there will be no point to continue to discuss this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 this thread should be locked starts to go far off topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReP0 Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 boo thats fine by me. You seem to think it's some sort of privilege to have a conversation with you. I'll go so far as to call you a liar with respect to the resource usage a bitcomet client goes through. It's not excessive by any stretch of the imagination and is comparable to utorrent once torrents are running.I have an opinion and am trying to correct the blatant misinformation about a good client that has allowed to run rampant in this forum just through sheer fanatasim. A case of putting down a client to promote another regardless of reality.Can some utorrent supporter with a coding background please step forward and inform boo just what patching entails and that it has absolutely nothing to do with bitcomet specifically and that infact the beloved utorrent client is just as susceptible to being patched to identify itself as something else in a simliar manner to the patches for bitcomet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 set up right thread about it this is about id spoof patch not about flaws what bc mayby have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxen Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 We could always go back about the patch.. but you do have to realise that talking about the patch would spur something like this. Its an open ground for discussion. The patch and how trackers, users respond to it are indeed connected.But if we will go back to it... its up to v9 nowadays. The creator is taking a small leave of absence.. and will then be back. If any trackers can scan the latest to be a spoof .. he will try to remedy that. For example.. his reason for creating it in the first place:I could go on and on boring you with my life's story and how I messed with the best of them but the point is, youngsters today think a few months' experience looking at tracker logs rises them above the so called "script-kiddie" level and gives them the right to call everyone else names and/or believe they are omnipotent. Well I did this patch just for them. And I did it using decidedly old skool tools: Turbo Debugger and a hex editor/disassembler that jnk, a friend of mine, did for OS/2 and Win32 many years back (it's called HED and you can probably still find it at OS/2 libraries - just look for hed178b.zip).Anywayz, I'll be on vacation for a couple of weeks and I'll probably do an Azureus emulation, if the uTorrent one is unusable by the time I get back Merry Christmas everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 i know hes reasons i have seen thread where he first time posted about that patch (its been deleted long time ago) all versions detected in couple minutes after private trackers gets info about those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 @ReP0: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.I don't follow µTorrent for the "small footprint hysteria," FYI. I follow and use it because it is a good client. Almost anything I need in a client is available, and if it's not, it's easy to request (you'd be surprised how many of the requests actually get implemented). The dev actually listens to the community (if I'm not mistaken, BitComet's developer doesn't even respond to any emails or whatever).You bring up the fact that µTorrent's forums have a separate section just for speed issues. Well tell me if you don't see any threads about speed and in BitComet. Whether it's a whole section or not, I've seen numerous threads about speed in the BitComet forums, and there has to be a whole tutorial about how to get better speeds with BitComet. Sure, you'll say that µTorrent's forums have a similar thread, but you know what? These kinds of posts are inevitable. So your point about a whole forum existing just for this problem is entirely moot.For me, µTorrent works just as well as BitComet (speed-wise). There, I complimented BitComet (yes, for a few months, I was using BitComet). But you know, I'd rather stick with a client whose developer responds and listens. I'm sure that BitComet's developer is competent enough to fix the problems with DHT, so why hasn't he for the past 3 (or more?) revisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxen Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 I'm sure that BitComet's developer is competent enough to fix the problems with DHT, so why hasn't he for the past 3 (or more?) revisions?Maybe something alone the line with the guy who made the patch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 The problem with the patch is that is not so much that someone is patching BitComet to go unrecognized, but that the patch uses the ID of another program. The latter part is just not right. And I'm puzzled why to use the µTorrent-ID to fake.I agree with the author that there are quite a few Tracker-admins out there which don't have the knowhow or experience to run a tracker, but be honest, would you ever want to use such a Tracker? No matter how you look at it, the banning of BitComet .60 was justified. But it would have been better if .61 was released to solve the issue. The whole patch thing and needless flame-wars wouldn't have been neccessary.BTW: This thread is about the PATCH for BitComet. Please, don't start a flamewar on BitComet vs. µTorrent, there are other thread for that. PS2: Some people here don't seem to get the point about PRIVATE trackers and the PRIVATE flag. Private means private, as in not sharing it with just anyone else. If you don't like that, download the torrent and seed it yourself on a public tracker. If you determined to be a leecher, use Newsgroups or IRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Thats for sure, since its based on the original bitcomet... (duh) And for the love of GOD... stop using v7... v9 is out gdammit ^^lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReP0 Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 @ReP0: Almost anything I need in a client is available, and if it's not, it's easy to request (you'd be surprised how many of the requests actually get implemented). The dev actually listens to the community (if I'm not mistaken, BitComet's developer doesn't even respond to any emails or whatever).Fair point but lets face reality. There are only so many hours in a day and going through a million emails wouldn't be high on my list either. The fact is that regardless of this he has all the functionality that one needs in a client regardless so it's not like development is being stagnant. Hell some of the stuff is rather innovative and leading edge. I remember pre-dht utorrent days people wanting the Azureus implementation of DHT for utorrent so that it would be more beneficial since Azureus is the next biggest client. That wasn't taken on board. I'm not complaining but I just point this out that not all things are taken on board as you so point out.@ReP0:You bring up the fact that µTorrent's forums have a separate section just for speed issues. Well tell me if you don't see any threads about speed and in BitComet. Whether it's a whole section or not, I've seen numerous threads about speed in the BitComet forums, and there has to be a whole tutorial about how to get better speeds with BitComet. Sure, you'll say that µTorrent's forums have a similar thread, but you know what? These kinds of posts are inevitable. So your point about a whole forum existing just for this problem is entirely moot.I agree but I've been on this forum for a while now and what I've noticed is that no client requires as much tweaking to get a result out of. Yes there will always be newbs needing help but even seasoned BT users have major problems and often need to resort to the "advanced flag" section which is rather rough.For me, µTorrent works just as well as BitComet (speed-wise). There, I complemented BitComet (yes, for a few months, I was using BitComet). But you know, I'd rather stick with a client whose developer responds and listens. I'm sure that BitComet's developer is competent enough to fix the problems with DHT, so why hasn't he for the past 3 (or more?) revisions?I'm sure he is. It's a simple case of changing one line in the code at a guess. It's a matter of whether he is taking a ethical stand for what BT represents and how it was designed to work or the wealth creation of private trackers. Trouble is the common user is in the middle now and all they see is inconvenience (fair enough). Privacy/security is a falsehood that is often promoted on private trackers. Anyone in the know would be shocked at the logs that are kept etc which is the most important part when you consider privacy. Put it this way, if you found out about that hot private tracker it's a sure bet those with a financial interest in shutting it down also know and in some cases depending where the tracker is do not need a member invite It's not that difficult to eventually get membership if you check periodically so someone being paid to do it won't have any issues and once you are in you are in.It's getting late so I'm heading to bed but what would be ironic would be if someone could patch utorrent and other clients to ignore the private flag and force DHT. Don't think that it's an impossibility. This banning a specific client to solve a funding problem s moronic to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 boo thats fine by me. You seem to think it's some sort of privilege to have a conversation with you. I'll go so far as to call you a liar with respect to the resource usage a bitcomet client goes through. It's not excessive by any stretch of the imagination and is comparable to utorrent once torrents are running.I have an opinion and am trying to correct the blatant misinformation about a good client that has allowed to run rampant in this forum just through sheer fanatasim. A case of putting down a client to promote another regardless of reality.Can some utorrent supporter with a coding background please step forward and inform boo just what patching entails and that it has absolutely nothing to do with bitcomet specifically and that infact the beloved utorrent client is just as susceptible to being patched to identify itself as something else in a simliar manner to the patches for bitcomet.because of that µTorrent doesn't use any libraries and it's compressed with PECompact, its not like the most other programs where you can use resource hacker to change some things in the program.Still, you don't give any proof to what you say, you just say the opposite to what I and Redleer say and how stupid and incompetent we are.Stop doing your pointless flame and show us some proof.No one else tries to discuss this with you, guess that only me and Redleer that has the patience to endure this pointless arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReP0 Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 because of that µTorrent doesn't use any libraries and it's compressed with PECompact, its not like the most other programs where you can use resource hacker to change some things in the program."One of the most common is that compression offers an inherent degree of tamper resistance and obfuscation." Notice the word "degree". Not 100% guarantee . Yes becaue of PECCompact it makes the job harder and hence not just any novice can do it but just consider this, all the worthwhile software that was released to the general public has been hacked to bypass piracy protection etc. Most cracks are patched binary files. Logic dictates that if PECompact was the way to stop hackers in their tracks the owners would be billionares and PC software trading would cease to exist :wink:Look at it from another way. Even if you couldn't hack utorrent to give it another ID there is nothing stopping you from downloading any open source bittorrent client to identify itselft as whatever (utorrent) and making it a bastard of a client. Propogate it and let the client banning mayhem begin (regardless of how well the real utorrent behaves or how well compressed it may be). Banning clients is just plain stupid given the insecure nature of the bittorrent protocol regardless of any patches in existence.Regardless it's not the fault of bitcomet that it is being patched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 It's getting late so I'm heading to bed but what would be ironic would be if someone could patch utorrent and other clients to ignore the private flag and force DHT. Don't think that it's an impossibility. This banning a specific client to solve a funding problem s moronic to say the least.Patching a program to ignore the private flag may be a lot of work. The most simple sollution would be to create an app that reads active torrents and creates its own DHT-network on the basis of that. It could then manually inject peers in the traffic between the tracker and client. But it wouldn't do anything good, as the extra peers would mostly be wannabe-leechers. And the system would be easily defyable.Now that we are off topic anyway :-(, why don't private trackers connect to DHT themselves and just ban every client they find for a private torrent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 because of that µTorrent doesn't use any libraries and it's compressed with PECompact' date=' its not like the most other programs where you can use resource hacker to change some things in the program.[/quote']"One of the most common is that compression offers an inherent degree of tamper resistance and obfuscation." Notice the word "degree". Not 100% guarantee . Yes becaue of PECCompact it makes the job harder and hence not just any novice can do it but just consider this, all the worthwhile software that was released to the general public has been hacked to bypass piracy protection etc. Most cracks are patched binary files. Logic dictates that if PECompact was the way to stop hackers in their tracks the owners would be billionares and PC software trading would cease to exist :wink:Look at it from another way. Even if you couldn't hack utorrent to give it another ID there is nothing stopping you from downloading any open source bittorrent client to identify itselft as whatever (utorrent) and making it a bastard of a client. Propogate it and let the client banning mayhem begin (regardless of how well the real utorrent behaves or how well compressed it may be). Banning clients is just plain stupid given the insecure nature of the bittorrent protocol regardless of any patches in existence.Regardless it's not the fault of bitcomet that it is being patched.quote post on this thread where someone have said its bitcomets fault its being patched. im too tired to read everything again when you cant quote it right away.It's getting late so I'm heading to bed but what would be ironic would be if someone could patch utorrent and other clients to ignore the private flag and force DHT. Don't think that it's an impossibility. This banning a specific client to solve a funding problem s moronic to say the least.so your saying some tracker unbans your bitcomet if you pay them enough? havent heard about that. or do you mean at some bt client costs? if you paid from your client your been scammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 It's a matter of whether he is taking a ethical stand for what BT represents and how it was designed to work or the wealth creation of private trackers.And therein lies one of the biggest problems with BitComet. I have this nagging hunch that the developer isn't interested in fixing the problems with DHT, and the fact that it hasn't been fixed in several revisions places a lot of flak on BitComet. It's no wonder people are switching clients and tracker admins banning the client.As for the speed issue thing, the fact that some more configuration is needed doesn't necessarily make it a bad client. It is indeed able to match the more popular clients' speeds (there are plenty of threads in the forum with people reporting success in configuration), so its speeds can't be "lack luster at best" unless you consider Azureus' or BitComet's speeds to be "lack luster at best" as well. Supposedly, a configuration wizard might be making its way into a future release of µTorrent, so that might help on this front.And I realize that not every feature is added (heh I've been here long enough =P), but a fair amount of the good ideas are, and if your idea isn't implemented, then its (hypothetical) benefit-to-effort ratio was probably too low for it to be implemented. I've looked at a lot of the requests that ludde has accepted, and they're mostly sensible choices, so I trust his judgement, whether he accepts my requests or not -- the few and far-in-between requests that I make (since the client, as I said, already does almost everything that I need).@Klaus_1250: This thread... that greater than sign... did you mean BitComet .60 better than µTorrent, or do you mean BitComet .60 to µTorrent ID patch? I get the feeling that it's the latter, but a bunch of people seem to be taking it the wrong way, and think you're talking about the former... Maybe you should change the title to reflect what you actually mean xP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 I'm talking about the latter, the word to instead of > would have been better. I can't change the title though :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffo Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Yet another reason to implement a "closed" encryption and ban all utorrent versions that dont support it..would solve the problem with thieves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 The thing about a "patch" is it's actually a "hack" -- this isn't an official BitComet client doing this just with a in-program settings change, someone hacked it to make it look like µTorrent v1.3. 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".If you want to argue that BitComet doesn't cheat, go read this first:http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=3531I tried to consolidate almost every cheat it supposedly does and confirm or disprove if it really did.The topic wandered off, but it's still a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 ReP0, perhaps you should do your own research, because you obviously have no clue what BitComet does.One of the reasons there's so many problems with BC as a seeder is that when you reach a certain number of requests, it throws them all away, and ONLY BitComet does this. It's one of the reasons speeds would go up really high, then suddenly crash. BitComet also has no control of upload slots, it just uploads all torrents at once and to way too many people, going at an awesome .1 KB/s or something per slot.It also has a really abusive multi-tracker announce implementation (announces to all trackers in all groups always), and ignores the interval specified in the tracker announce/scrape, instead choosing its own value. It really hammers every single tracker.And it's also commonly known that BitComet abuses super-seeding clients by disconnecting and reconnecting in rapid succession to regain a download slot and not have to upload the piece it gained, so it can basically monopolize the super-seeders.It also disconnects and reconnects constantly when it gets choked in larger swarms, to try and get a download slot.And you should see the BitComet help section on p2pforums.com, the speed problems make up more posts THAN THE ENTIRE SIZE OF THIS FORUM. And Azureus' forums on SF have a ton of speed problem posts too. Almost all speed problems on µTorrent are settings, settings, settings.You're just a troll and an obvious BC fanboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yinchie Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 /me always hated BitComet, ever since Torrentbits was still up. I'm so happy private trackers are finally banning that client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdr Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 i guess simple persons do this patchdo you really need any bt client when utorrent is here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxen Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Hehe, ya... I was still suprised someone was visiting v7. Time to shape and up and do some reading Thats for sure' date=' since its based on the original bitcomet... (duh) And for the love of GOD... stop using v7... v9 is out gdammit ^^[/quote']lolThis was an interesting thread.. but I have yet to see any response on:1) Can share torrents with friends that didnt get accounts (are they to be without just because?)2) BC brakes the connection once the key is removed. BC stopps tracker traffic right away when an ERROR has occured. Thus no extra bandwidht is spent on the tracker.Concerning slowed down PCs with BC:--------------------------------------------The resource hunger seems to be different to some, but I guess thats just natural. A thousand different ways that a PC is setup will do that.Small history:----------------If anyone wonders why I am so pro bc... its because I have a friend who had 2mb upload before and used his stat to scold me every time we talked about bittorent. That was a behaviour I saw over and over in other individuals. Stats defined their existance pretty much. Not a very impressing way of life. It gave them some sort of high and mighty attitude.Now hes back to a capped bandwidth.. and he actaully came by and asked me to help him. Its not the same type of scolding these days. He accepts that some do need to take advantage with clients when other things are stripped from them. We now share torrents as in the old days.. before the outbreak of privateers. I miss those days dearly.. Dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 1) Can share torrents with friends that didnt get accounts (are they to be without just because?)Allowing this destroys the purpose of private trackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.