Jump to content

Cheat Control NOT WORKING!


SanctimoniousApe

Recommended Posts

I've had to block IPs in my firewall (it would be sooo much simpler to allow manual temporary banning of 1-24 hours, despite what uT's authors say - since I have to resort to this method, I have to remember to unblock them in my FW periodically) because the D/U ratio is waayyy out of proportion, so I KNOW they are cheating.

A couple examples from a 4GB torrent I checked on when I got up this morning:

1. I have 46%, they have 73% - I've ULed 19.6MB, they've sent me 256KB. Ratio ~78:1.

2. I have 48%, they have 78% - I've ULed 40.1MB, they've sent me <700KB (don't remember the exact #, was about 650KB I think). Ratio ~59:1.

I would love to be proven wrong about this, but at the moment I can see no other explanation.

BTW: They were all BitComet v0.62 or lower (I actually blocked 4 IPs, but didn't remember the details of the other two).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because the D/U ratio is waayyy out of proportion, so I KNOW they are cheating.

You know nothing exapt that u are a moron! how do you know how many they upload?!

Are you the tracker operator that can see there connections to other peers?

If not then you are just a idiotic moron(!) if you block them jsut because they do not upload to YOU!

(due to guys like you there will never be a kick and ban feature in µT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not necessarily cheating. It is true that they download more from YOU than they give back to YOU. However to other clients they may be giving a lot more than they are getting. You just can't see that.

I, for example, am among the unfortunates whos Internet Provider has the opnion that UL speeds should be much slower (and extremely expensive to upgrade) that DL speeds. This means that I have to seeds for a long time after I have finished downloading. - And I do seed to 150%.

I would feel sorry if you would ban me for this - I know my connection is bad. But I try to compensate by uploading the default value of 50% more than I have taken.

I know that I have said no more than the 2 posts above. I just have a vain hope that an alternate view on the subject would make you think twice about banning people with poor upload speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated originally, "I would love to be proven wrong." The two initial responders (including the so-called "Administrator," presumably also acting as moderator), however, have done nothing towards that regard, but instead immediately descended to hurling insults. I failed to understand why people were putting uT down at another site, but maybe now I have an inkling. If your attitude is any indication, then I can certainly understand - I may be advising others away from your elitist mannerisms as well.

As for the third respondant, I am fully aware of the disparity in D/U ratio most ISPs impose - I suffer from this as well. However, the BitComet client is NOTORIOUS for heavy leeching (particularly the earlier versions I noted the banned peers were using). While I am certainly far from fully conversant in the ways of the BitTorrent protocol, I find the odds of such an extreme ratio difference being only a side effect of how BT works rather remote when I notice that such a disparity only occurs with peers using that particular client.

While I admire the idealism of the uT "staff," it - like the communist ideal upon which it seems based - is subject to corruption by those who would seek to take advantage of it. Even under a communist regime, one is generally free to choose who one considers a "friend" (a peer I continue to share with) and who is not (those I choose to ban). One is only forced to "respect" those in power (which even still happens to some degree under capitalist societies), much as I am forced to deal with uT's handlers if I am to remain under their regime (i.e. continue to use uT despite my philosophical differences with its creators).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) BT has no real cheat control (there are MANY flaws with the protocol) and neither does µTorrent.

2) We really don't like banning of specific clients, we prefer leaving it up to the tracker.

And really, your example doesn't look very special to me, and not any real indication of leeching. YOU will show up as that same kind of "leech" on many other people's clients. If everyone were to ban so-called leechers, well, no one would be downloading. I use µTorrent, and I can see a lot of times where I've downloaded a TON from one person, and given nothing back (even though I'm not a leecher), so I would certainly appear like this so-called leecher you mention to that person.

Do you get what I mean now? That 10:1 ratio is really very common, and sometimes worse.

And it's annoying to have to make these responses, because this topic has been discussed many times, and really, you could've done a search.

The reason you get a "scathing" response is because you come in here acting like you know the protocol better than anyone else, since you claim you KNOW such and such is cheating.

And hell, you're not even right about the banning, the only banning µTorrent has is for clients who send bad data more than 5 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake regarding uT's leech control, then. While I find it rather a serious stretch to take my statement to mean I think I know the BT protocol through and through, I probably should have read up on the forums a bit more before posting (I did a search on "BitComet" and came up with little useful or pertinent to my complaint although I didn't really read every post). To be fair, however, not all of us have the time (work, toddlers, & a disabled spouse make for a busy life) for searching through a ton of posts hoping to find one that matches a situation like mine. While I hardly expect a free product to live up to "professional standards" of support, I think a simple link to a particular FAQ with some brief explanation regarding how it applies to my particular situation would have been a much more appropriate response from someone who has chosen to take on the "support" role nonetheless.

My last visit was around v1.3 /v1.4b days, but at that time it seemed to be implied that some sort of leech control was being implemented and that was part of the reason behind the ratio limit for those uploading <5KBps implemented with v1.4. Perhaps I misconstrued what was being said, but that was what I took away from the conversations at the time and therefore why I assumed the situation I described should not be possible. My apologies for any misunderstanding there.

Nonetheless, contrary to your seemingly reflexive thinking I DO understand that I may appear to be leeching from someone else as well IF ONE ONLY LOOKS AT THE D/U RATIO! That is why I also mentioned how much of the total torrent they had (at least 25% more than I). Also consider the fact that my up speed is roughly 1/6 of my down (a 640Kbps DSL line), and you'll see that it took considerable time to send them that much data. Compared to every other client (including later versions of BC), the ratio was extremely out of whack. We're not talking a 10:1 ratio such as you mention (or even 20:1) here - the examples I cited were well over 50+:1!!! All ONLY coming from the same client (BC v0.62 or below).

While I somewhat understand your thinking on having the tracker control the banning (the source of the file theoretically should be able to control how it is shared, although once someone's DLed it there's no keeping them from re-sharing it and thus blowing that argument out of the water), I disagree with it because *I* should be able to control how MY bandwidth is used (and obviously I have a real problem with cheats stealing it from more deserving peers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude... stop calling the other peers cheats unless you are prepared to prove, with evidence, that they are, in fact, cheating.

Just because they have ~30% more than you do doesn't mean a damned thing.

We all know BitComet has its issues of not playing nice with the swarm. Nothing we can do about that client.

If the tracker allows them that is their choice. If you don't like it, use another tracker.

From the way I've seen BC operate, it seems to favor its own kind, and it caches more efficiently by dropping requests for data that isn't presently in the cache.

If it didn't send you anything, there is a good chance it didn't because it is sending other pieces to other clients, and the piece you requested, isn't one of those pieces, and not in its cache at the time.

It is also possible they are cheating.

It is also possible their ISP slaps down their torrent traffic on their upstream so much, that they can't get anything through. BC users are more likely to be on one of those ISP's, since, until recently, BC was pretty much the only alternative they had for encrypting to get around it.

In any event, BitComet peers are allowed with the tracker you're using, so you're just going to have to live with having BC peers on the swarms.

If you can't live with it, stick to private restricted-use trackers exclusively. If you don't want to go to private trackers, then just suck it up and STFU about it.

Don't hold your breath expecting µT to become peer-hostile any time soon. We've tried hard to keep it as peer-friendly as possible.

-- Smoovious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I chose to ban bitcomet clients is that they have no respect for one's bandwidth, on a typical swarm, I'll usually see one or two bitcomet clients positivly taking up *all* of my remaining bandwidth leaving little or no bandwidth to other peers.

This is the reason I chose to switch back to Azureus (that and some other issues I have with µTorrent)

So, the sum of my post becomes: if you want to kick the bitcomets where it hurts, get azureus, and the stuffer plugin, that will effectily take care of most of them! (that and some other upload shapers makes it very fair towards the swarm)

µTorrent is a fair client, for better or worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already explained, I started this thread under the apparently mistaken understanding that some form of minimal leech control was being implemented starting around the v1.4beta period. It has become quite clear that was not the case. Nor was I lobbying for uT to become "peer-hostile." I was simply reporting what I thought was a bug/problem, and instead wound up explaining in excruciating detail what seems to be quite obvious given the facts. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I can understand and appreciate such undeterred - if a bit unrealistic - idealism (while still not agreeing with it), then I'd have a hell of a time believing that I'm still having to defend my observations and opinions.

That said, I think I've made at least a somewhat respectable case for at least limited "peer-hostileness" (although again that wasn't really the original intent of this thread), and if the developers refuse to see or agree with that then that's certainly within their rights. Unless and until that mindset changes, then I'm done with this subject.

Thanks for your time and responses. G'day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is a danger that I might derail this topic - since there obviously is something I haven't quite understood.

But as I see it the complaint is that the early versions of bitcomet leeches ... I have checked the various Bitcomets clients that I have had as peers - and most of them had given me a lot more than I had taken from them. Also the most a Bitcomet user had taken more from me than I had given was 304Kb. So basically if anyone leeches it is me ... (but as I said I will be uploading for a loooong time to pay that back).

Anyway, I can't see that Bitcomet clients should be leeching in anyway ... have I misunderstood something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...