utorrent 1.7.1 is banned at bitmetv

Can anyone explain why utorrent 1.7.1 still is banned at bitmetv.org? I see no reason why it should be banned (no other tracker I know of has banned it). Because I use this tracker a lot I have to stick with version 1.6.1, which doesn't work very well with vista (slow download speed).

Did you ask them?

Yep, there reply: "It is banned and will stay banned.". When asking why they get angry and refuse to explain why. I'm getting pissed at bitmetv now.

Usual reasons then.

They can't justify or explain.

most of stuff on bite me tv gets uploaded to other trakers, so just search for the files u want some place else, I haven't used bitemetv for like a year now.

Yes other trackers have done 1.7 and 1.7.1 such as DigitalHive and Bitsoup.

It doesn't really help without them providing their reasons proof.

Edit: Yeah, I had already seen the reasons, but was wondering about the proof...

Actually the Bitsoup admins said the reason to be that 1.7.1 sends out data.

Prolly same with the other ones.

And yet they don't have proof

Actually the Bitsoup admins said the reason to be that 1.7.1 sends out data.

Bitsoup is a front for anti-p2p organisations, they're collection usernames, passwords and IPs from unknowing users, they know what you share, when you share, who you share it with and how much, LAWSUITS ARE ON THE WAY!!

See, I've said it, therefor, it is true...

Seriously now, come on...

Bring on the next bunch of tinfoil hatters, I think we're on a roll here!

www.neontorrents.org has this posted now...

2007-07-15

Recently Utorrent 1.710 STABLE was released, however it turned out to have some nasty bugs concerning data reporteing back to the tracker with torrents over 4GB. Since this was released as a STABLE version my trust has been lowered even more in what i consider a very tempermental client. Most of the issues we have with announces are utorrent related (and i know why). If i had my way way i would just ban every version of Utorrent, but i know a good majority of our users use it. We will not be unbanning any version of 1.71+ now. At the end of the day it should never of been released as STABLE.

Idiots!

At the end of the day it should never of been released as STABLE.

I guess bugfix builds for softwares are unheard of or are a taboo around there. Everyone, switch to Linux! Microsoft releases bugfix patches every month! Oh wait, they do the same on Linux. I guess we're all screwed? The irony/hipocrisy of this whole situation really is astounding, to say the least, but I guess that's just how FUD works.

In other news: µTorrent 1.7.1 was released with the fixed code less than a day after the announce bug was discovered. Those devs... quickly fixing an unintentional, easy-to-miss, and hard-to-detect bug... Oh, how devious of them! What else might they be craftily plotting? Stay tuned, as the clever scapegoats never stop coming!

In all seriousness, though, they missed the changelog for 1.7.1. Or misinterpreted it.

Crocus: the download stat issue was in 1.7; 1.7.1 was released to FIX it.

morons..

dont dare ask why

Well, I talked to the neontorrents admin and corrected him about 1.7 being the only one that was screwed up. He then unbanned 1.7.1.

I'd talk to other tracker admins, but I'd need to know the IRC channel or something to do so.

Firon, EXCELLENT!!!

When I posted what they posted here I felt like I was just barking up a tree. I never thought the admins there would change their stance. Good job enlightening them to the facts and winning them over!

Well, I talked to the neontorrents admin and corrected him about 1.7 being the only one that was screwed up. He then unbanned 1.7.1.

I'd talk to other tracker admins, but I'd need to know the IRC channel or something to do so.

Other trackers are banning it as your program reports data back to the RIAA and MPAA so if you want your client unbanned, REMOVE THE CALLHOME FEATURES!

DeFuZioN: Have you noticed that those trackers are utterly unable to provide any proof?

It doesn't call home. Now, if you can prove it does (wireshark is your best bet), then please do so, and I'll shut up.

And if you provide an IP in the range of 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255, I will laugh at you.

> I guess bugfix builds for softwares are unheard of or are a taboo around there.

Let's not trivialize it.

The 4 GB bug is an oops on BitTorrent, Inc.. That should have been a test case, and it was a bad miss. I have to wonder, however, what code change between 1.6.1 and 1.7 introduced that bug? The features that were indicated as changed between the two versions seemed mostly independent of that area.

But the miss makes me wonder what kind of testing was performed as part of this release. This is no longer a hobbiest working for free in his off-time. These are professional, paid developers. Mistakes, even big ones like this, happen. But too many big mistakes smells of professional malpractice.

> Other trackers are banning it as your program reports data back to the RIAA and

> MPAA so if you want your client unbanned, REMOVE THE CALLHOME FEATURES!

There aren't any such features, AFAICT. I'm pretty much a tightwad packet auditor -- if it did Phone Home, I think I'd notice it.

However, one cannot prove a negative. One can, however, prove a positive. So please tell me, DeFuZioN, how and when does it Phone Home? Or what, exactly, does it do that 1.6 did not do that makes you suspect that it Phones Home?

> And if you provide an IP in the range of 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255, I will laugh at you.

I'm pretty sure that a well-meaning but confused "Power User" on one system is convinced that uTorrent is reporting P2P activity to IANA, since one of the traces has a WHOIS response listing IANA as the owner.

- Change: Only report downloaded, verified good pieces in tracker announce

This is where the bug was introduced.

And to be honest, there's only 5 developers, of which only one is actually fulltime for µTorrent. The beta testing is still, as it was before, done by the users (even if there's some private testing behind the scenes, it's still the same people as when ludde was around). There's no sophisticated testing software or anything of the sort.

The reason the stable was pushed out was because there were no bugs being reported, and the last major change (the tracker one, which was already two weeks old) didn't appear to have had any problems.

And that IP range is reserved for multicast.

I have to wonder, however, what code change between 1.6.1 and 1.7 introduced that bug?

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=261918#p261918

Like I had been saying from the very beginning. That was the only change to what was actually reported to the tracker since... forever. Ironic that an attempt to be more honest with the tracker by only reporting good pieces downloaded ended up doing the opposite (temporarily), but ah, that's life -- stuff happens.

But too many big mistakes smells of professional malpractice.

If I was overtrivializing it, you're overstating it. How many big mistakes were there? This one thing. How quickly did they fix it? Within a few hours. Why didn't they catch it? Because it was an edge case where the integer overflowed when the downloaded amount hit the integer limit, and the devs don't sit around downloading 4GB stuff all day, and many users don't either. It really was a big oversight, sure, but it's not like it was an impossible-to-make one either.

Yeah, we could install that build and test it -- somehow I think a "rollover bug" like this seems to be would not be caused by that change. Unless a developer wants to say something about the code here and save the time.

Personally, I think loading up 1.6.1 and testing that might reveal that it has the same bug found in 1.7.

/edit/ now I'm talking out my ass. I realize that such a bug could manifest itself at the beginning of a cycle instead of the end -- so yes, it could fall the way you described it. Anyway, this is all very academic -- the real problem is the bans of 1.7.1 due to rumors and misconceptions -- sorry to steer us off course.

> If I was overtrivializing it, you're overstating it. How many big mistakes were there?

No, we're in agreement. One. One big one. And that's forgivable -- my trust is not shaken, yet. A string of these would be a bad sign.

> and the devs don't sit around downloading 4GB stuff all day,

> and many users don't either.

The developers don't have to sit around. They can just write a driver that moves that counter to whatever number they need.

And DVD-R's are 4+ GB in size. Like I said, that's a real obvious test case that was missed. It's a bad, non-trivial mistake for a product like this. Test cases, use cases, and boundary conditions -- that's pretty much Software Engineering 101 stuff.

Expecting the users to do testing like that? Let's hope that you are wrong about that--I'm thinking that they'd be more professional. Everyone misses something, they missed this. I'm hoping that's all it is.