μTorrent Development Priorities

[Simon Morris]

μTorrent is actively developed by the engineering team at BitTorrent, Inc.

This discussion topic is intended first to outline what we're trying to do and how we choose what comes next. It is also a place to discuss big picture new ideas (rather than individual feature requests).

Overall we're interested in making our software more and more popular and further extending the use of the Bittorrent protocol in general.

We're also interested in becoming and remaining profitable. Many important contributors on these forums are volunteers, but the core development team is made up of paid employees, and furthermore Bittorrent has shareholders who want their shares to be worth something one day.

We understand that the popularity of the μTorrent software comes as a result of a long history of contributions and making more good choices than bad (starting years ago with Ludde and with thousands of other people since then), and by the good graces of millions of individuals who use the software today. We may be forced to do some things that are not super popular (e.g. distributing opt-out browser toolbars), but we are acutely aware that our popularity is based on goodwill and that other alternatives to our software exist. This means we balance Popularity and Revenue in all our big decisions. We do some things that are purely about revenue and many that are purely about popularity. But we need to make a balance in order to move forward. In looking at features we're interested in:

- features that users actively demand

- features that just make sense (things that improve things even if users don't specifically ask for them)

- extending to more devices (OS's and different types of CE platform)

- extending to more use-cases for the technology

We strongly believe that the client must always continue to be free. (Maybe we will try to sell some things but NOT the main release of the client.)

We don't want to bloat the client. It will continue to be "a (very) tiny BitTorrent client".

We want to find ways to blend popularity with revenue better.

We're not going to do anything to compromise the trust our users put in us – there's no path to success if we do, and we think we share with our users a belief in an open and neutral internet and seamless transfer of data between people who use the internet.

A brief insight into future possibilities?

How do you guys feel about paid (optional) web services? For example, "user privacy" is a feature that we've seen excitement around - this is best achieved with a VPN server (it could also be achieved via onion-routing between peers although with greatly reduced transfer speeds due to bandwidth asymmetry).

What about more open APIs to allow μTorrent to work in the background in support of a more seamless website experience. μTorrent will still work as normal, but websites will be able to make direct use of the client (wrapped within a user-controlled security wrapper).

What about other devices – tiny appliances or mobile devices?

For now these are just ideas with no promises attached. We may or may not do them. (Your feedback may help us decide.) We are working on AND considering a large number of things that will start to come out later this year and beyond.

The next release of the client (v2.0) will feature the μTP protocol by default which should eliminate the underlying issue which causes ISPs to throttle Bittorrent traffic. This is (we hope) a giant step for the Bittorrent user community and the internet in general. When ready, it will complete a multi-year engineering initiative.

We hope you'll bear with us while we try to make progress, and give us suggestions and ideas about how to do things better.

[Switeck]

BitTorrent lives, breathes, and DIES based on its ability to upload. Obviously download is important, but a client that cannot upload reliably will lose customers rapidly. Any problems/bugs that hinder upload needs to be tackled with a high priority.

1.Right now, there seems to be problems with uTP causing reduced (from max) uploading even when the line is not under load. Best descriptions of cause seem to be here:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=416738#p416738

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=416947#p416947

2.In my own exeperience, local (or fast) download kills upload speed across ALL active torrents...even when seeding from multiple hard drives on a fast computer:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/404/utorrentlocaldlkillsuls.png

Someone else's similar results with a "clearer" picture:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9626/utorrentdlkillsulspeed.png

...Sadly, I don't know what causes this nor why it doesn't happen all the time.

3.uT1.8.3 faulty upload slot handling when upload slots=1:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=56897

4.There are similar problems for very fast connections attempting to run many torrents at once:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=45733

uTorrent is restricting upload slots on all torrents despite being WAY below upload speed max AND not having many active upload slots started per torrent. uTorrent is counting EACH torrent with 1 peer as having MAX upload slots for purposes of how many upload slots to allow globally.

I've heard multiple times about 100 megabit/sec upload lines connected with 100's of peers that for whatever reasons cannot keep upload above 5 MegaBYTES/sec.

5.Seeds that connect and do nothing most of the time help basically no one. It encourages people to increase their connection max + half open rate (to find "good" seeds) and possibly draws more attention from ISPs to take aggressive measures against BitTorrent. A low + reasonable Seeding Torrent Max connections limit (separate from normal torrent max connection limit) would fix that:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=47523

My calculations show that MOST broadband connections (at least up to 2 mbit/sec upload) gain nothing allowing more than 10 peer connections per seeding torrent. So if this was an advanced setting that's enabled by default it would help the most people for the minimum amount of effort.

Anything that does not add directly or indirectly to uTorrent's ability to upload is potentially bloat. It may be useful bloat, but must be added with caution. New features accidentally breaking old ones is a sad fact in a complex software world.

I want to see BitTorrent used in more places, especially businesses...in such a way that it partially loses its "hacker/piracy tools" description in the press. This means BitTorrent.com giving examples of where it is already used rather than possible future uses.

BitTorrent could replace horribly inefficient video streaming over the internet and allow slower connections willing to wait longer the ability to watch higher bitrate videos. A dial-up modem could download a 1 GB torrent but could not stream a 1 GB video at any appreciable rate of speed.

Enterprises could use BitTorrent to synchronize mostly static large datasets across multiple servers/networks. But it needs to be done in a more automated fashion than it is today. Basically a BitTorrent-driven NAS RAID array. Maybe even have BitTorrent.com INC work with companies for more specialized forms of this...for additional revenue.

I've used other file sharing programs in the past to locate duplicate files across my multiple computers, but because BitTorrent has no concept of files...and only understands whole torrents and pieces, I cannot do this using uTorrent.

BitTorrent could have an improved distributed locater system for sharing large files. From what I understand, currently torrents have to be hosted on a website somewhere to be "easy" to download...then be located through regular internet searches (GOOGLE) or via DHT. While "bare" torrents can be hosted through DHT alone, they would of course come without a description, could be horribly misnamed (on purpose if one's intent is to hide the nature of the torrent), and may take a while to find.

Make the news more often! "BitTorrent researchers demonstrate aggregate speeds across multiple networks at once to achieve record-breaking file transfers of xx Gbps." "NASA demonstrator space network synchronizing data using BitTorrent technology." ...Or more mundane examples: "BitTorrent researchers discover serious flaws in various consumer hardware and software: various routers, many security products, Vista/Win7, etc..." and "BitTorrent now fully supports IPv6!"

And one very important way to make the news is create an official speedup video for distribution through online video streaming sites as well as downloadable via .torrent link from BitTorrent.com! We NEED some counter-press against the absolutely horrible YouTube videos that 1000's of people are using, which sabotage ISPs and threaten the last mile infrastructure of the internet.

Double/triple/QUADRUPLE the screen size of the uTris game. (or better, user-configurable! __ x size ) It's TINY even at 1024x768! Making it exact whole-number multiples of its current size hopefully can keep the additional code limited.

[bigdoood]

From time to time, I need to download a number of items as quickly as possible. I find that by starting/pausing some torrents and some experimentation, I can utilize my link reasonably efficiently. Does utorrent have a mode where it attempts to optimize download speeed mix? Should it?

[eliot_cougar]

@Switeck:

2.In my own exeperience, local (or fast) download kills upload speed across ALL active torrents...even when seeding from multiple hard drives on a fast computer

For me it does not seems to be a great issue... Yes, if the client finds local client (rarely) and starts downloading at 10MB/s all uploads almost stop... But the other side of this is that local download is often short in time, I can download 1-10GB torrent in minutes and be back to normal upload... I do not use bandwidth limits since I switched to using only uTP connections (bt.transp_disposition = 10) and it seems to not interfere with browsing or online games even on high loads...

Anyway, local uploads/downloads should have priority because they

1. Do not stress ISP's links (and hence are welcome by ISPs)

2. Have high speed (and hence are welcome by users)

3. Are short in time

4. Have the ability to make more seeds in swarm faster (should be welcome by... lets say P2P philosophy)

5. Optimize overall traffic flow

[ezmac1964]

please add, reate torrents !!!

thanks

[penetr8or]

I've heard multiple times about 100 megabit/sec upload lines connected with 100's of peers that for whatever reasons cannot keep upload above 5 MegaBYTES/sec.

For those who doesn't know.. 5 MegaBytes is 40 megabit.. Personally I'm on a 40mbit/40mbit connection, and since I updated I'm downloading with no more than 100kilobytes/sec.. And my uploads are no faster than 400kilobytes.. Only a fraction of what I got before (even tried redownloading things I downloaded before update, slooow)

I can only agree with Switeck that this really needs priority over new features, as this is what matters most

edit: Maybe I should look at the date of the stuff I quote.. But it's still true.. Things like these should take priority over new features (but we'd still love to see new features every now and then )

[rafi]

Simon Morris:

- features that users actively demand

Being a high priority, I wish you guys can find time and attend to my poor-old post regarding improving RSS - here http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=44903

I guess, there is no sense copy and paste it all to here...

[ovonrein]

I know this thread's a little old but some of us take longer to cotton on to developments in p2p than others... I just logged a very minor feature request and stumbled upon this quote

How do you guys feel about paid (optional) web services? For example, "user privacy" is a feature that we've seen excitement around - this is best achieved with a VPN server (it could also be achieved via onion-routing between peers although with greatly reduced transfer speeds due to bandwidth asymmetry).

which I thought worthy of comment.

Simon, elsewhere you identify as critical the community's ability (and willingness) to upload. This, I agree, is key and is also the reason why I periodically invest considerable amounts of time into maintaining and tuning my own uTorrent installation (which is running 24/7). My own downloading activity is puny when compared to the GBs I pump up (to the despair of my ISP). If your thoughts above are molded along the model proposed by TorrentPrivacy.com, then consider this:

I simply do not download enough in a year that paying $200 for such services would even border on the economical. Put another way, if I ever sense that the probable penalty for my p2p activity will exceed the equivalent over-the-counter purchase price of my own consumption, I shall switch off my uTorrent. (*)

Given that I spend 100x more time supplying TO the p2p community then drawing from it, it follows that I am a 100x more likely to get punished for SERVING the community.

I know that many at uTorrent fret about Leeches on laptops not acting in the spirit of the community when they close down their machine as soon as they have what they wanted. But the law-enforcement conundrum above is SO OBVIOUS that the rational response from ANY user to it is to turn themselves into a Leech.

IMHO, this is what you should be most concerned about. Look after your uploaders first. And the best way to do so is to implement full encryption for uploaders. It is your misfortune (in pursuit of the above business model) that this will also give downloaders full encryption.

Alternatively, don't enhance privacy and take a gamble that the p2p community will survive the very public persecutions of those poor wretches that catch the attention of some eager lawyers...

(*) Bear in mind also that my uTorrent usage isn't even free at this moment. I pay for the most expensive broadband option at my ISP primarily because of uTorrent (and still get hate-mails from my ISP ).

[Firon]

Encryption by itself can't really protect you. It won't enhance privacy, because other people still have to protect you. You have to do something beyond just plain encryption, and it's non-trivial (and not practical generally).

[ovonrein]

Explain Firon? It seems to me that the easiest point of snooping is at the ISP level. And so long as traffic across an ISP is unencrypted, that ISP may even be expected to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. If peers could agree encryption on a connection, preferably w/o making that handshake too easy to intercept, then the packets that follow cannot be inspected. Yes, enforcement officers can still front as peers but that's a 1:1 battle which is unlikely to be productive. It's in taking on the ISPs and trackers that they can get the leverage they crave...

[Firon]

There's already encryption to do that. ISPs don't bother with snooping on you. Enforcement officers do front as peers, and it's the most common technique used.

[ningjian]

good

[Algis]

I represent ISP. My work is running intercity backbone and international links for 700'000 customers network.

There are some opinions in this forum about "being good to ISP".

Someone said uTP is good to ISP. Maybe it will help a little bit, but shifts to UDP will just force us to pay additional licenses to upgrade traffic limiters and routers, as on some old routers UDP has priority over TCP so uTP will kill browsing for customers served via such routers. And after we will fix all that and re-implement limiters, then uTP will try to adjust behaviour trying to detect circuits where limiters are operating, and more or less help to achieve ISP goal - direct more traffic to the cheapier (in absolute majority of cases local and in many cases faster) peers.

There is wrong assumption that it is important to connect to the fastest peer whatever the distance. No, the true need is to collect traffic from all available local peers, and only if not enough speed, then go for even more peers at a bit longer distance, then longer distance and only then the whole planet. Local links must serve all popular mass content so that international links are free for rare content...

Example – we have a small city with 5000 DSL lines at 20Mbps, and uplink at 100Mbps to backbone because that city does not have fiber cable yet. Even if latency over DSL will be minimum 10ms with maximum upload speed of 1 peer at 1Mbs, compared to maybe 4ms latency and 40Mbps speed of some peer via uplink, the first priority remains to utilize all the local uplinks first, whatever their speed and latency, and only then ask a chunk from 100Mbps uplink bandwidth. Due to P2P behaviour we need to seriously limit it via traffic shaper in order to sell more lines in that city, because until 10000 lines are not sold, there will be not enough income to finance laying down fiber optic cable to that city.

Still the biggest winner from uTP is PC user, who can tolerate a bit lower speed in exchange to less impact to web browsing and other applications that are online at same time. This protocol do not care about distance and cost at all BEFORE it creates the congestion problem...

Why there is still no functionality so that ISPs can remove limiters at all in the first place?

With one little and simple (compared to uTP) added functionality you can reduce demand for global/international Internet traffic by 20-30% (or increase user perceived speeds several times), and remove the need for throttlers for uTorrent program.

What matters to ISP? User payments vs. Cost. If not the costs, nobody would even care to throttle traffic, because ISPs want happy customers and we do not want to invest into expensive devices with the purpose to limit traffic instead of speeding it. But we are forced, because P2P programs neglect network costs. They use high cost links when there is no any need for that. 4MB chunk is requested from other side of planet even if there is a million peers offering the same data nearby. Some companies doing multi-million business out of uTorrent weaknesses in this area because with expensive traffic shaping devices they can detect and throttle uTorrent traffic despite all encryptions.

Even many FTP sites care about the network costs and ask the user to select the closest server. uTorrent do not care, even with uTP. Until now the bittorrent efficiency was much better than emule because many torrent sites/communities are local and they unintentionally connect more local peers compared to emule that is global. Good torrent trackers also try first to connect local peers (at least by simple country based principle). But now when uTorrent implemented DHT and magnets will start to take over, situation will be worse and worse for ISPs. So users will notice that via DHT they get slower speeds compared to community based private torrents. In extreme network situations some operators may start to filter DHT and this wrong limiting game will continue.

ISP costs are very small for local traffic (switches use nearly the same electricity if they are idle or occupied at 100%) and cost is very high for international traffic. 1Gigabyte transfer costs nearly zero between neighbor peers and can cost more than 10USD to transfer to far away destinations.

Users understand distance=cost when they dial international numbers but think everything is "for free" in the Internet. Its not.

The technical solution is simple and was described in feature request post. Compared to uTP, from ISP point of view, "connection order based on priority IP ranges" is need No.1.

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=63921

Few pessimistic comments are from users who probably have only one or a few PCs and do not see the big picture how international Internet backbones work, what part of traffic is torrent traffic, how local, regional, national and continent level Internet Exchanges work and what cost is generated for ISPs at each level, what is a cost of 10Gbps port on international router, how BGP works etc. etc. I am 15 years in this industry and no doubt that priority based connections based on IP distance (IP cost) tables provided by ISP will have huge positive impact and will give much better speeds to all P2P users. If uTorrent will implement this "fair usage: no long distance abuse" policy, we will simply push out other programs as they will just create more load on backbones and provide worse speeds to customers - then why to tolerate extra costs at all if no benefits? Best of all, DNS based IP cost list files will work for any traffic - private torrents too.

There were ideas to use GeoIP data to decide connection priorities, but that is too complex and too much location data. ISP directly provided priority (traffic cost) lists will have just some 20-50 or so IP ranges with clear priorities, and thats all whats needed to keep transfer costs down for popular traffic with many peers.

The similar mechanism (provision of configuration file from DNS based http address) to was already implemented for autodiscover e-mail configurations starting from Outlook 2007, and works OK in practice.

Most of ISPs will implement reverse-DNS based URLs with IP priority ranges very fast... I would be happy to test it first in our network, will implement required URLs and measure the impact on backbones. I will prepare a special whitepaper and spread information fast to other operators how to configure optimal bittorent traffic routing.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this important Internet cost reduction feature. Its a misunderstanding that big time is spent to implement technologies with the purpose to fool ISP limiting and win some more traffic for uTorrent at the expense of other programs, but until now no time was spent to substantially decrease whole Intenet costs for running this "small" program.

Best regards,

Algis

[Switeck]

"ISP directly provided priority (traffic cost) lists will have just some 20-50 or so IP ranges with clear priorities, and thats all whats needed to keep transfer costs down for popular traffic with many peers."

Most ISPs I know about don't like to list their ip subnet ranges, if they do so at all anywhere.

They think it makes them more vulnerable to hackers/crackers/viruses/malware/spammers.

On top of that, in the event that uTorrent has only "distant" internet peers/seeds -- uTorrent would be unable to know which peering arrangement is the best to use even if it knew the ISP's ip ranges.

So long as there's a big disparity between real internet bandwidth and users' download/upload max speeds, ISPs will throttle/disrupt/discourage/attack *ANY* form of customer activity that produces lots of traffic. Those ISPs that do so aggressively better hope they're a monopoly in an area, because people will go to others that do so less aggressively given a choice. It was the unreasonableness of ISP disruption (speeds reduce to <10 KB/sec 24/7) that spurred the creation of BitTorrent encryption in the first place.

ISPs don't advertise how aggressively they thwart user activities. Some used to flat-out deny disrupting traffic.

Peak/Off-peak traffic limits offers another way for ISPs and heavy-use customers can coexist -- you can use lots of traffic, but not during peak evening hours.

[Algis]

Switeck, do you really know any worth attention ISPs that hide their IP ranges? Sounds like telecoms that want to hide their country telephone code. This information is open, you can get IP by country and IP by ASN easy, and even location for any IP at public services like maxmind.com or similar. No issue here. All ISPs I know will happily provide information to uTorrent what is the IP cost ranges. Use only the sources starting from the cheapest available IP ranges, please.

I invite you to invest into any ISP so that you have majority of shares (if you have no cash nowadays just imagine that you are the ISP owner who invested all your money into ISP business), and then please provide 1gibabit to everyone for 30EUR/month, because its the current market price, and then please do not limit international speeds at all, just buy the backbone capacity - as much as users with uTorrent will try to use. Programs like uTorrent will kill your business very soon. WHY?

Lets assume you are the owner of telco in the country with 2'000'000 lines. uTorrent is responsible for 40% of all your network costs. You operate at 15% margin due to heavy competition and low prices. And then you have very popular torrent, that is seeded worldwide at 1 seed per 100 lines ratio, including your network. It means there are 20'000 seeders on your network. WHY this program tries to connect for the 4MB pieces of that file to seeders from Brazil, New Zealand, USA, Australia, China etc.? Because DHT selects peers at random, and the probability that peer will be selected from your network is 2million / Total IPs and so it is very low. You will need to buy enormous capacities to other continents, and you will be unable to provide 200Mbps services at 29Eur/month, because you will have some 6000 Eur/gbps/month costs for the backbone connection. So, you will be out of market very soon.

The ISPs who survive will install expensive traffic limiters and nearly close international uTorrent traffic, allowing sites like cnn.com to continue working, and uTorrent will still provide good speeds taking majority of traffic from local sources, because they are not limited. Hopefully at least one nearby peer will be choosen and it will run at wire speed. Unfortunatelly, rare files today have bad service in this scenario. You can not open more traffic for rare files and limit traffic for available nearby popular files to the backbone, because there is no way to do that in any other place except the program itself, but the program behaves very badly and pays no attention to that.

Now the question - WHO created the traffic limiting need in the first place? Irresponsible programs like emule or uTorrent.

And in this complex situation uTorrent developers behave like heros and take the approach to encrypt the traffic. Instead of fixing the core of the problem, fight continues for bigger piece of expensive international backbone for the content that is just available nearby at gigabit speeds. Its can be named "uTorrent backbone fraud".

Some responsible tracker managers at least return IPs of peers that are in the same country, if available. But DHT pays no attention to the costs. So uTorrent now becoming as irresponsible as emule. Speeds will follow accordingly, as ISPs will be forced to block it despite all our desires to give better speed to users.

So little is needed to behave responsibly - pay attention to the IP cost table, so there is really no need to limit traffic to costly destinations. Do not create the extra costs where it is not needed.

uTP is no solution. It tries to cure post-desease symptoms of this program but does not try to solve the core of the problem. Please implement IP cost tables. I described the need in detail here, its simple to do and ISPs will change the attidute to this program very soon. Myself I will send official letters to tens of ISPs I have contracts with, to urge them to provide IP cost tables to uTorrent so that this program stop abusing international links when there is no need to use them.

"Knock, and the door will be opened for you". This is what I am doing now. Sorry for long knocking but I hope people like Simon Moris will hear it, will think about this, will understand the core problem of this program and the tremendous unnecessary costs this program creates for ISPs with big harm to the users also - they cannot get rare files at good speeds, they cannot browse the distant webs at good speeds. And I hope the developers will implement the IP cost (or "IP priority") table support, sooner or later. Internet is becoming a videonet, HD is coming so traffic will only increase, and the only solution is to shorten the traffic distances in order to supply content to gigabit lines at wire-speed. Please implement this in nearest version (drop ISP.BEP22, its result will be too limited compared to what IP cost tables can achieve, implement ISP.IPpriorities=TRUE by default).

Best regards,

Algis

[Greg Hazel]

The similar mechanism (provision of configuration file from DNS based http address) to was already implemented for autodiscover e-mail configurations starting from Outlook 2007, and works OK in practice.

Most of ISPs will implement reverse-DNS based URLs with IP priority ranges very fast... I would be happy to test it first in our network, will implement required URLs and measure the impact on backbones. I will prepare a special whitepaper and spread information fast to other operators how to configure optimal bittorent traffic routing.

This mechanism you describe is the same discovery mechanism which is used by BEP22.

(drop ISP.BEP22, its result will be too limited compared to what IP cost tables can achieve, implement ISP.IPpriorities=TRUE by default).

So, dropping BEP22 is not quite helpful. BEP22 is the groundwork for and IP priority system. All we need to agree on is a format for the local tracker to return IP priorities. How about something like:

'ip priorities': {'4.4.4.4/24': 10, '8.8.8.8': -10}

in the body of the standard tracker response? The entries in the list would be CIDR or single IPs, and the number would be the priority relative to no specific priority, 0.

Does this cover your specification? What would your specification be exactly?

[rafi]

Having a method to prefer local traffic over international one - will be a big benefit to ISPs over here. They are investing a lot in local BitTorrent caching to try and avoid it. I have suggested this feature long ago. I tried to avoid the need for any dependencies on outside resources (ISP/trackers) and use IP ranges or/and better - Geo/country info, already used for displaying Flags in uT.

I also mentioned Odo - a vuze solution for it. Unfortunately, All of those were ignored. You may find some more info/ideas - over at this thread too.

[Switeck]

"do you really know any worth attention ISPs that hide their IP ranges?"

Yes, the one I'm on -- ComCast Cable ISP in the USA.

http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=7853&view=2.0&v=4

Whether AS7853 is routed via IPv6 or tunneled in some manner, I don't know. But it does say:

"NOT Announced This AS is not currently used to announce prefixes in the global routing table, nor is it used as a visible transit AS."

Maintaining local ip ranges for ISPs is beyond the means of BitTorrent the company and would no doubt balloon the size of uTorrent the program immensely. It is both non-trivial to gain such information and non-trivial to likewise maintain it for average users. Example list of AS numbers used by ComCast:

http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=ComCast&view=2.0

It is unreasonable to assume the users would have a bloody clue about the peering arrangements of an ISP -- such as which upstream providers are "favored"/cheaper for the ISP.

"uTorrent developers behave like heros and take the approach to encrypt the traffic. ... Its can be named "uTorrent backbone fraud"."

If someone is getting slow speeds on torrents, ISP throttling is not the first thing we blame here. But for some ISPs extreme measures must be taken even to achieve 56k dial-up speeds. As I previously said, It was the unreasonableness of ISP disruption (speeds reduce to <10 KB/sec 24/7) that spurred the creation of BitTorrent encryption in the first place. It wasn't a "solution seeking a problem" -- the problem was very real, very severe, and very unfair. But thanks to DPI, BitTorrent encryption is not immensely effective...at least anymore.

[fowl]

µTorrent is not the enemy, the user is. That's a problem, and not a technical one.

[Balonizator]

Bad became utorrent for last year, somewhere since 1.8.3.

Both have bought it, and became bad.

Updatings it is constant, and work is worse and worse.

At tests brakes and hangs.

At closing too tightly brakes and hangs.

Care only about яндекс and other additional functions, and about direct appointment and stable work of the program there is an impression that don't think.

Badly, very badly.

Excuse for poor-quality transfer.

good luck!

[Switeck]

"Updatings it is constant, and work is worse and worse."

Lots of people do run uTorrent on bad networking (bad router and bad software firewall typically.) Because uTorrent has started using UDP predominately for peer/seed connections, it triggers crashes in horribly flawed commercial products that simply cannot handle the load.

"At closing too tightly brakes and hangs."

Microsoft has publicly announced a serious flaw in IPv6 that uTorrent uses which causes uTorrent to hang on exit.

"Care only about яндекс and other additional functions, and about direct appointment and stable work of the program"

There is a feature freeze on the uTorrent v2.0.x product line, and uTorrent's developers are trying to get it debugged and released in the interim before releasing the new uTorrent v2.2 and v3.0 series.

[chrisley]

I've followed all the instructions and upgraded each and every time but for the last month it keeps dropping out and asking me to select a destination ( which I thought was automatically done by the programme) but no. it takes 3 weeks to download a file that is 2.72gb this is since the last two upgrades.

Please can someone explain why this is happening as it never was this slow and I'm seriously thinking of moving away from this programme, since I've been with the programme more than six years and it would be a pity.

[Switeck]

"I've followed all the instructions and upgraded each and every time"

Which instructions?