TheDude Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I've noticed "BitComet 0101" in torrents on trackers where BitComet is banned, and a search here showed that this is "BitLord".Does that client do some (or all) of the bad things that BitComet does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 BitLord IS BitComet, so yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 BitLord IS BitComet, so yesBut if BitLord is only one version "0101" - then is it necessarily the same as 0.59/0.60/0.61 BitComet which produces the problems?In other words, I've been led to believe that it is only in the latest few versions of BitComet that the bad behavior occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Unfortunately, other bad behavior pre-dates the BitComet->BitLord fork, so that bad behavior (and some worse stuff) carries over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 BitLord 1.1 is BitComet 0.59. So the only BitComet cheat feature it doesn't have is the DHT leak on private trackers in BitComet 0.60.However BitLord is worse because it has Adware added into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 BitLord is based on BitComet v0.58. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 So, what might I say to people who run private trackers to convince them that they also need to ban BitLord as well as BitComet ?In most cases, it was the DHT leak that prompted them to ban BitComet in the first place - the other issues may be harder to "sell"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Abusing the Optimistic unchoke function of the protocolLying about piece have/give informationAbusively requesting piecesPoor upload metricsHorrid upload slot selection metrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 +dropping other client's requests (for pieces)hammers trackers (lacks multi-scrape) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forcedtoregister Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 I find many bad sharing peers that use this client, so I manually add their IP's to my block list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Ultima, thanks for that link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emtec666 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Lying about piece have/give informationWell it's not lying but uTorrent 1.4 also does not report back the % it has downloaded in total. Really annoying BitComet like behaviour.Fortunately they set the default "bt.send_have_to_seed" back to "true" again in 1.4.1 beta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 reporting haves means nothing, you know that right? they do absolutely nothing :/It's a bandwidth saving feature to not send HAVEs back to the peer/seed that sent you a piece, and the BT spec itself tells you that relying on haves is a bad idea.Not reporting = OKLying about haves and bitfield = not OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.