1c3d0g Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Well that was pretty much it, Nefarious. :/ Like Morpheus said, there's no debate, it's been proven that BitVomit cheats. Apparently some fanboys can't get over this fact and need to resort to childish tactics like these to justify their client's behaviour. ZV's response is typical of BitVomit's major userbase, unfortunately. This is yet one more reason to grab more BitVomit peers and teach them the right way to do things, and not be just another leecher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 It has one on a per-torrent basis but it doesn't work at all. It completely ignores it. XDGo BitComet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZV Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Actually, I HAVE been out of town so could not respond, but it's a little disturbing to see a Mod respond this way. Just like I don't represent all Bitcomet users, I'm sure you don't respresent all Utorrent users, as I am one of them also since Bitcomet is still banned from many of the private sites I belong to. I've been using BOTH these clients since the day they came out, and with hundreds of files downloaded and upped, and good standing in almost a dozen private sites, I'm probably far from an "uninformed troll". Since I use Utorrent also, I probably won't be going away as I like to hear and submit tips if I got 'em. With such a popular clients, there's bound to be debate. Hell, go to the Bitcomet forums and I'm sure they are arguing the merits of Utorrent over there. All I did was relay my own personal experience so that people can test and make their own choice. The whole issue is actually hilarious, as people accuse Bitcomet of "cheating" and private sites want to institute all kinds of restrictions, all this for torrents that are most likely illegal anyway! Hell, some are even trying to charge you for the priveledge of downloading what's not even theirs! Actually, I just started to use a couple tips here about global max connects so after I look into it, I may be proven wrong. yukycg: http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#Does._C2.B5Torrent_have_a_BitComet_style_add_torrent_dialog.3FZV: You're an uninformed troll. Just go away. Live in denial with the belief that BitComet doesn't cheat. Unfortunately, just about every tracker admin (and many users/client devs) with a brain has discovered through their own tests what BC really does. The claims aren't false. BC cheats plain and simple. Oh and ps most of the BC users I knew have switched to µT because the speeds have improved so much lately, and it does it WITHOUT cheating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animorc Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 It has one on a per-torrent basis but it doesn't work at all. It completely ignores it. XDEven if it ignores it, there's no problem with BC's upload speed. You can, without any troubles, set it to any limit and it will do the job for you. The endless arguing about BitComet's cheating reputation was ridiculous in the beginning and have been getting even more childish as time has passed! If you want to leech, you can do it just as well with any client. You might not abuse the tracker or the seeds with another client, but that's not the point. If you want to share as little as possible with µTorrent, just set the ratio goal to 0% (or perhaps 1%) and the torrent will be stopped when it's finished. I don't know if there's a feature for automatically stopping torrents once they are downloaded in BC, but I'm sure there is.There's even another easy way of leeching with µTorrent: Just uncheck "Seeding tasks have higher priority than downloading tasks" and load a number of torrents higher than the amount of active torrents allowed, set the number of active downloads to the same as the nuber of active torrents, and you'll instantly stop seeding until there are no more downloadng jobs to find. Then you can just close µTorrent without needing to upload even a single byte if you're "lucky" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Even if [bC] ignores [upload slot limits], there's no problem with BC's upload speed. You can, without any troubles, set it to any limit and it will do the job for you. The endless arguing about BitComet's cheating reputation was ridiculous in the beginning and have been getting even more childish as time has passed!Perhaps you're right, BitComet should be just banned by default and be done with it...saving everyone's time and energy.Can't you see how devestatingly bad BitComet could be if it doesn't use a reasonable upload slot limit? It would be like a DoS attack on all the peers in a torrent it tries to upload to. At the very least, it would result in lots of duplicate+discarded data. At the very worst, torrent chunks might repeatedly fail hash and have to be downloaded again.Surprise, surprise...that's JUST the problems being reported!This problem doesn't go away with higher upload speeds on torrents with lots of peers...or in some cases, even the SEVERITY. If you're trying to upload at 5 KB/sec total to 10 peers at once, that's pretty bad -- you could be causing those 10 peers lots of duplicate data and maybe the occassional hash error. If you're trying to upload at 100 KB/sec to 200 peers at once...suddenly the potential problem becomes magnitudes worse even if the duplicate data and error rate remains the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Actually, I HAVE been out of town so could not respond, but it's a little disturbing to see a Mod respond this way.Indeed... many of the responses (including from mods) are disturbing to see... However, I wouldn't take it to personally or seriously.. It seems many here would brand anyone "uninformed troll" for merely suggesting that uTorrent could be improved in some areas or that some other client could be faster/better/whatever than uTorrent. Some people just feel their e-penis being threatened, and you see the disgraceful e-pissing contest like in this thread ("BitVomit", "get a clue". "uninformed troll" etc...). For the record, I'm only using uTorrent, and I'm very happy with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiLeech Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Yes, I support ZV. There are definitely things about BC which are better than uTorrent, and there are things in uT which are better than BC. uT should learn from BC and implement Peer Exchange. For a p2p client not to implement peer exchange is just silly. Why should everything be filtered through a centralized tracker when that centralized tracker could easily be taken down and the whole torrent/swarm is worthless? DHT and peer exchange is essential to a trackerless world. Private trackers are the ones which should be banned out of existence, not BC. Private trackers have no right whatsoever to try and control the copyrighted material they're trying to horde. I am against leeches, but when it comes to private trackers, I do enjoy hearing about leechs infiltrating those swarms. Private trackers have no right trying to control their illegally gotten goods in the first place. It's so infantile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I think he's being shot not for saying BitComet is faster, but attempting to defend the cheating behavior as a "maximization". Aggressive is good, but what BC tends to do is try and circumvent BT regulatory protocols. The easiest to understand is its Rapid Connection Recycling. As I understand it, normally, peers that fail to upload requested data for a long time are snubbed. This is one of BT's regulatory mechanisms to punish leechers. However, to ensure new people with nothing to share will get pieces, everyone is forced to at least unchoke one guy no matter what - optimistic unchoke, and that guy changes every once in awhile. By rapidly cycling the connections when being snubbed, BC gets a disproportionate amount of draws on the optimistic unchokes, making a hash out of the snubbing mechanism and the optimistic unchoke system which was meant, IIRC, to give newbies a chance to slowly collect something to let them get in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiLeech Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I see what you mean. If BC indeed does that, then I can see why it would be seen as a predatory and leeching client. It just unfortunate that BC ends up being the best client for my situation (refer to other thread) because of it's implementation of peer exchange. As soon as uT implements peer exchange, I think I can fully switch over to it as my sole BT client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 By rapidly cycling the connections when being snubbed, BC gets a disproportionate amount of draws on the optimistic unchokes, making a hash out of the snubbing mechanism and the optimistic unchoke system which was meant, IIRC, to give newbies a chance to slowly collect something to let them get in the game.But KS, that is what makes BitComet so schweet!!!!!........that was extreme sarcasm on my part..........There is a member that has a quote in his sig that illustrates this perfectly, boo, and his sig says this:"Bitcomet is like a runner who trips all the other runners" .......nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Private trackers are the ones which should be banned out of existence, not BC. Private trackers have no right whatsoever to try and control the copyrighted material they're trying to horde.While I have to say the reaction against BC by private trackers is a little extreme (come on, it only works while the tracker is down, who is going to bother trying to DL over DHT with that when speeds from BC clients only would be much slower than speeds from a public site), private trackers should not be banned.I have no sympathy for those who charge money for their use but the private sites that don't (and don't aggressively promote donating) are great; they keep leechers in check and generally get stuff faster than public sites if that's something you're interested in. Also they have the whole "community" aspect going for them in a much bigger way than any public site, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiLeech Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I really don't agree with the concept of centralized trackers. It's too easy a target to take down, even if it's not by law enforcement or by lawsuits. What if a disgruntled site operator got fed up and just suddenly tore down his/her site, leaving all the "community" hanging? Without the centralized tracker, you're all toast. With DHT and Peer EXchange, you're all still alive and kicking, so long as one guy out there has the file and seeds. We must move away from this idea of a centralized private tracker as being a good thing. It's totally not. I don't ever see one situation where a private central tracker is a good thing. If the complaint is against leechs, then modify and improve the BT protocal itself and their various clients to make sure everyone is mandatorily compelled to upload and contribute. The idea that it's only through the private trackers that leeches can be controlled or kept out is fundamentally wrong, I believe. The BT protocal and clients need improvement to ultimately bring us to a point where BT is completely trackerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffo Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I dont think you got one word correct, the idea IS to keep leechers away. And even a perfect protocol wont help most leechers upload speed whatsoever. Like it or not.And you can still dl if tracker goes down, you just dont get any more peers.Could it be your connection is so bad you havent experienced the speed on a good private site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 LOL no Miffo that is not it, he has an ideal of a perfect trackerless bt world, that is all. Private trackers with their ratios have no place in that world but the question remains, how do you control the leechers....even in a trackerless bt world? Will it matter about leechers in a trackerless bt world? ATM the only way to do that is to enforce ratios, will that be needed in some form, will clients have to be adapted somehow to accomodate that model, because you KNOW there will be leechers, how will/can a trackerless envoirnment be able to deal with that if it becomes an issue? Will leeching not be an issue because of the trackerless enviornment? lets discuss the ideal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisa01 Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I really don't agree with the concept of centralized trackers. It's too easy a target to take down, even if it's not by law enforcement or by lawsuits. What if a disgruntled site operator got fed up and just suddenly tore down his/her site, leaving all the "community" hanging? Without the centralized tracker, you're all toast. With DHT and Peer EXchange, you're all still alive and kicking, so long as one guy out there has the file and seeds. We must move away from this idea of a centralized private tracker as being a good thing. It's totally not. I don't ever see one situation where a private central tracker is a good thing. If the complaint is against leechs, then modify and improve the BT protocal itself and their various clients to make sure everyone is mandatorily compelled to upload and contribute. The idea that it's only through the private trackers that leeches can be controlled or kept out is fundamentally wrong, I believe. The BT protocal and clients need improvement to ultimately bring us to a point where BT is completely trackerless.Seems to me you want something like eMule. The whole point behind BT is that it's centralized! You can control what get's shared on your tracker, and use it to distribute it through a common protocol. If you just want to share it with absolutely everyone, with no control, just use a real p2p protocol.And since you complain about the private trackers, which in my opinion is totally OK, then come up with something yourself that will shut leechers out more effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffo Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 What? He obviosly dont like private trackers. And if he dont want any tracker at all, as eisa said he should try emule. A big mess where everyone connects with everyone... Slowest network online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 While I have to say the reaction against BC by private trackers is a little extreme (come on, it only works while the tracker is down, who is going to bother trying to DL over DHT with that when speeds from BC clients only would be much slower than speeds from a public site), private trackers should not be banned.I read at the BitComet forums a thread by users of v0.60 who even though they weren't aware of even temporarily disconnecting were uploading (and possibly downloading) from other BC v0.60 users outside the private torrent. They were disturbed this was so, since they had personally disabled DHT and peer exchange. The BC client was simply ignoring their wishes, and they were also worried THEY would get banned from the private tracker because of that.AntiLeech seems to hate private trackers, so this might seem ok to him. But I have to ask...is it ok to destroy private trackers against user's wishes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 actually.....decentralized bt......that exists.....its called exeem......also known as a Waste of My Time and Yours too......so much for that idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 That's why I only use BitTorrent now. I used to use Kazaa Lite and started looking for other programs but all I was finding was crap. I ditched Kazaa only because I got tired of the slow speeds. Almost everyone using the Fast Track network seemed to be on dial-up. So it's BitTorrent all the way for me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 What if a disgruntled site operator got fed up and just suddenly tore down his/her site, leaving all the "community" hanging?Too bad for that community.. Do you have a way of creating a decentralized community? :/ I can understand what you're saying - with DHT/PeX the torrents can continue more effectively without a tracker, but that doesn't mean shit for the community.Personally I think the thing creating the most speed on private sites is the stats recording - the number of people saying "wow, I have 16 TB uploaded and a ratio of 653.45" not the people on 10KB/s up seeding 'cos they don't want to get banned.As for FastTrack, I actually get (got) reasonably fast speeds on it - frequently over 100KB/s and usually over 50KB/s which is a lot more than I can say for most public sites. Having said that the thing that killed it for me was the fake files. Stupid uuhash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumu Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 If a community site goes down and takes the .torrent files with it, both DHT and PeX are useless for new downloaders unless someone posts or recreates the .torrent files elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Just for the record, I've seen more public trackers just completely shut down due to legal issues than private trackers. My favorite private tracker uses peer guardian on their tracker and pass keys on the torrent files. So the security & privacy is very strong.They also have a time delay for downloading from the tracker. So people like myself who have 5:1 ratios or higher get the data right away. Because they know we'll seed the files by our high ratios. So there are a lot of seeds by the time the lechers get to connect. Because of this new delay system they use the mods decided to unban all the BitComet programs. As long as it doesn't become a problem again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffo Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 ehh, security is pretty much 0 with BC in the swarmThats why its banned on all sites with good admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 While using the Passkey system torrents are usually pretty secure unless someone is really stupid. The Passkey links the torrent to the account/profile of whoever downloaded it from the tracker. So using that torrent reflects on that person's ratio and a person's ratio reflects on their access delay. So people aren't very quick to pass their torrent files around the various index torrent sites. And if a particular account it abusing the tracker too much it gets disabled.Basically they do a very good job of holding people accountable for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 However, if you use Azureus, there's various issues with its DHT where it may be possible for someone to steal your .torrent (and your PID by extension). The developers know there's a few leak issues like that with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.