Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BitComet Banned From Private Trackers

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the salt-for-my-leeches dept.

Software 447

An anonymous reader writes "Slyck news is reporting that because BitComet does not recognize the 'private flag' on torrents originating from pirate BitTorrent trackers, this client is being banned from these communities. Private trackers are finding their torrents spread via the private DHT layer, allowing leechers to bypass ratios and download content freely."

cancel ×

447 comments

So? (-1, Flamebait)

Kickboy12 (913888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235300)

BitComet isn't a very good client anyway.

Azureus [sourceforge.net] is the best!

Re:So? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235312)

no, azureus is a fucking java pig.. utorrent is the best

Re:So? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235317)

for KDE users ktorrent is better :^)

Azureus Is Shite (1)

meehawl (73285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235359)

Azureus is the best!

Azureus is a resource hog - slow, bloated, and imposes a vast footprint. If your platform is Windows, then smaller C++ clients like BitComet and uTorrent blow it away.

Re:Azureus Is Shite (3, Funny)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235372)

Well what'd you expect from something running in a Java VM? I've seen 150mb of RAM go to Azureus, Eclipse and the JVM while using me computer. Not that it matters a whole lot when you've got a gig of RAM.

Re:Azureus Is Shite (3, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235445)

Azureus uses SWT, and can, like Eclipse, be compiled to native binaries using GCJ (or various other native Java compilers). Such binaries are often far faster and less memory-hungry than JVM-run Java applications.

Re:Azureus Is Shite (1)

MikeD03C (766484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235393)

I've always liked BitTornado myself.

Re:Azureus Is Shite (1)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235420)

Me too. And there's a Linux version. In fact, the CVS Linux version even uses GTK2! Way better than the bloated Azureus.

Re:Azureus Is Shite (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235413)

1) Buy better hardware. The java footprint is negligible on a modern machine.

2) Get a better platform. Java on Windows sucks because Windows sucks. Java on Linux isn't bad at all. There are plenty of low-overhead clients for Linux/Unix (rtorrent, ctorrent, ktorrent) but most people use Azureus because it's better.

Re:So? (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235370)

uTorrent [utorrent.com] says otherwise. Azureusish interface + features, signifigantly smaller footprint. Of course it is Windows only and not open sores, but one can't have everything.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235379)

Azureus is the best for multi-platform.

But for Windows, uTorrent [utorrent.com] is the best. It's small (115KB), uses not alot of RAM (~5mb) and has most of the features that Azureus has! It even has a bandwidth scheduling function.

Re:So? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235387)


BitComet isn't a very good client anyway.

Azureus [sourceforge.net] is the best!


They'll ban it next. Azureus uses the same style of distributed trackerless system that BitComet uses.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235419)

maybe if you read the one page article this story is about...

it doesn't use the same style DHT, and it does obey the private flag ... so you're totally wrong.

RTFA

utorrent ftw

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235453)

That doesn't mean that it will be banned. As long as Azureus follows the private flag, all will be well. Azureus can use the trackerless system all it wants as long as the tracker isn't marked as private.

Re:So? (1)

evilneko (799129) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235422)

Azureus does have the best seed priority/queuing system, I'll give it that much. 'Course, that's enough for me. I seed a bunch of torrents from various sources, most of which are permanent seeds on my box. Prioritization is a must.

If I didn have so many seeds running, I'd be using uTorrent or something else.

Re:So? (0, Flamebait)

MrBelvedr (889266) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235427)

Azureus is slow as hell. Bitcomet is written in c++ by somebody who know show to program.

http://www.ring4freedom.com/ [ring4freedom.com]

Re:So? (2, Informative)

XplosiveX (644740) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235429)

It's the only client that has the 'Protocol Header Encrypt' option which is very useful for those of us who's ISP's use services like P-Cube software [p-cube.com] . The P-Cube service engines are VERY capable of doing IP selective throttling and BitComet is the only solution I've found that can has an option that can get around it.

Is it just me... (0)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235301)

...that misread this as a story about "pirate trackers". What a silly mistake that would have been.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235437)

no, it's not.... The word "pirate" was in the blurb (a typo), so it's probably working on ya subconsciously ;)

Sorta Old news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235302)

I reported this here and responded to an email from a writer at wired regarding this problem..Azureus was allowing the bypass when the DHT first started to become very active..it was quite nice actually.

Re:Sorta Old news (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235318)

But since azureus is open-source, what if someone decides to make an build without this private flag recognizing feature? Shouldn't azureus be banned as well, having this "potential security hole"?

Re:Sorta Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235385)

The protocol is open, most of the clients are open... yeah, good luck on this one lol. Not that open is bad, open is good. They just want to do something that BitTorrent was not designed for; secure private distribution...

Changing BitComet's User-Agent (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235303)

Is there a way to change the 'user-agent' of bitcomet to make trackers think it's another client?

Re:Changing BitComet's User-Agent (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235484)

I don't know much about bit comet, but there is a part of the bittorrent specification that sends an identifier that is supposed to indicate the bittorrent client during the handshake. You might have to change bitcomet in source and recompile to be able to change it though. Im not sure if these private trackers rely on this, or if they do some other analysis to double-check the value given them by the client.

In English? (3, Interesting)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235305)

Private trackers are finding their torrents spread via the private DHT layer, allowing leechers to bypass ratios and download content freely.

And that means what in English?

Actually, it becomes a bit clearer when you read TFA. Apparently there are private torrent sharing communities that don't want to broadly distribute files, just share amongst themselves. This one BitTorrent client, BitComet, does not respect the keep-out signs, so such communities are having to be more proactive about keeping BitComet users from trespassing.

Or at least that's what I think it means.

- Greg

Re:In English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235375)

Doesn't that sound a bit like the "evil bit" though? Folks, the "evil bit" was an april fool's joke for a _reason_. These private communities should just encrypt the private data. It's like expecting a web site leech to honour robots.txt. Not gonna happen.

Re:In English? (5, Informative)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235428)

DHT = "Trackerless". The P2P traffic is not managed by the tracker, like it normally is, but by the clients. This enables faster transfer, but interferes with the tracker's ability to manage piece distribution.

Private = "Tracker only". Well-behaved clients see the private tag and ignore trackerless requests. Usually for sites that have download ratios or other mthods that force users to upload a certain amount of content in order to continue to download.

The problem with using DHT on a private torrent is that the data in the torrent file you download that identifies who you are (for your account ratio) gets passed to other users. That screws up your ratio because others are downloading with your account info. You can very quickly find yourself below the enforced limit if you don't disable DHT.

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235306)

If I want to share my torrent with other users, regardless of their affiliation with the tracker, thats my business.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235368)

Nope. If we let you in to our private tracker and you break the agreement you made by wasting our resources, you'll be banned. Tough. Go use KaZaa.

Pot? Meet Kettle. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235308)

allowing leechers to bypass ratios and download content freely

Does this strike anyone else as an ironic, considering that all the people that are downloading *aren't* the owners of the content to begin with?

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle. (5, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235360)

Does this strike anyone else as an ironic, considering that all the people that are downloading *aren't* the owners of the content to begin with?

That's a very bold generalization to make. It is almost RIAA-esqe.

There could very well be a family wishing to share a large collection of digital family videos that they have taken at holidays and birthdays, for instance. They want them to remain fairly private while sharing the content that they own.

BitTorrent has many, many legitimate uses. It is completely incorrect to claim that all users who wish to limit the sharing of their data are pirates.

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235410)

Oh, right! That is a laugh. A family sharing their home videos over bit torrent. Can you name ONE family doing that? Can you name ONE family even CAPABLE of doing that?

Pot? Meet Kettle-A clean line. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235451)

"There could very well be a family wishing to share a large collection of digital family videos that they have taken at holidays and birthdays, for instance. They want them to remain fairly private while sharing the content that they own."(1)

The whole nitpick hinges on permission.* Your mother may "own" some feminine hygiene products. Does the fact that you're a member of "the family" mean that you "own" them as well? What happens if she says it's OK? Do you now own them?

*People who engage in "illegal copyright infringement" obviously don't have permission. All other things being ignored.

(1) HTTPS or E-Mail will do this as well.

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle-A clean line. (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235463)

My mother has been dead for decades. She has no need for tampons. Thus your point is moot.

Watch what I do here (5, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235461)

At least give downloading Linux distributions as an example. The one you gave was tortured so effectively I have to wonder if you work for the White House.

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle. (5, Funny)

mph (7675) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235468)

There could very well be a family wishing to share a large collection of digital family videos that they have taken at holidays and birthdays, for instance. They want them to remain fairly private while sharing the content that they own.
What kind of family worries about "leechers bypassing ratios"?

"Grandma, we love you, but it's about time you seed some vids of your own!"

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle. (2, Insightful)

Fearan (600696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235487)

To be fair to the poster, these trackers are private for a reason. Well, more than one actually, but it's not so a bunch of people get together to share pictures of the trip to NYC. More like, they want to restrict how many leechers are trying to get access to all the free copyrighted material.

If you've surfed private trackers, you'll know there are VERY few legitimate files on these sites. Of course, the occasional demo or freeware is posted, so everyone can get them quickly, but a large percentage of the files on these trackers are not legal files. Anyone who denies this has their eyes covered in some sort of awesome /. induced bias screen.

Oh, Come On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235363)

Everyone knows BitTorrent is only used to trade the collected works of Shakespeare, important historical documents, and other works in the public domain.

Re:Oh, Come On! (1)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235380)

Everyone knows BitTorrent is only used to trade the collected works of Shakespeare, important historical documents, and other works in the public domain.

Don't forget GPL.

I guess... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235373)

When a friend of yours asks to borrow a DVD of yours, do you answer "I'm sorry, I'm not authorized to loan, only to watch this myself?"

Re:I guess... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235469)

When one friend asks to borrow it, I let him have it.

When 600 people I don't actually know ask to make a copy, I start thinking maybe the analogy doesn't work at all.

Thanks for trying, though. That's one more weak rationalization I'll stick in my file.

Re:I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235482)

Why, yes. Yes I do.

If more people bought DVDs the price would go down.

It would, wouldn't it???-)

Re:Pot? Meet Kettle. (5, Insightful)

FreakyGeeky (23009) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235467)

Maybe the video-trading family example is weak. I'll offer you a real example instead: Mandrake Club. Mandrake Club members pay an annual fee for access to expanded versions of the Mandrake distribution. This depends on the level (read: cost) of your membership. In all cases, the content that members can download is different from the freely-available Mandrake content. Now, why would Mandrake or its club members want non-members using their private bittorrent distrubution method? In this case, they certainly own the content.

with the what and the who and the what? (3, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235315)

First slashdot article I've seen for a while that has read like total gibberish. Anyone got a link to what half those terms mean?

Does anyone with a slashdot id under 5000 understand it?

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (5, Funny)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235350)

Slashdot article that reads like total gibberish? You must be new here.

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (1)

Sonicated (515345) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235411)

Slashdot article that reads like total gibberish? You must be new here.

He's going to need counseling when he reads the dupe!

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (1)

indigoid (3724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235399)

yep, makes perfect sense to me

though i can't help thinking "quit yer whining, bitches" - they're already pirates and so they
are utterly disregarding licenses. while this "private flag" isn't a license (it's a mechanism) they really are in no position to be throwing stones

OTOH the mechanism has legitimate applications as well

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235400)

Yeah, a low slashdot ID actually MEANS something.

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (5, Funny)

jpatters (883) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235407)

Does anyone with a slashdot id under 5000 understand it?

No.

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (5, Funny)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235443)

Wow, elitism and ignorance in the same post. You have been here a long time!

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235472)

Took me about 10 min. of looking around to understand. A summary would've been nice, indeed.

Re:with the what and the who and the what? (1)

clark0r (925569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235474)

yeah, this is totally clear to me.

This has always been a problem (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235316)

ANY TORRENT CAN BE MIRRORED. Torrents are not private, I can put up a mirror of your tracker and people will be let in on your network. This has always been doable. It was also done alot on http://wdma.biz/ [wdma.biz] and now http://hpj.cc/ [hpj.cc] (something awful based trackers). The Admins won't notice but the users might if you let the MPAA in on your tracker.

Get over it. Bram didn't design this system to protect pirates.

Re:This has always been a problem (3, Informative)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235341)

I call bullshit. The tracker itself can be privatized simply by doing authentication based on IP address (several bittorrent communities do this). Even if you get the torrent file that uses the tracker, it will deny you access.

Re:This has always been a problem (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235386)

authentication based on IP address

In so doing, they block anyone with a dynamic IP. Anyone with AOL or someplace like that is totally dynamic. That would tick off a lot of people, which may or may not matter to the community. But if they are a relatively small community, and they have some of the their better seeders on dynamic IPs, they would be hesitant.

Re:This has always been a problem (3, Informative)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235401)

In so doing, they block anyone with a dynamic IP.

Don't you have to log in to a web site to use private trackers? So when you log in it updates your IP address on the seeder's list, or however it works. I wouldn't think dynamic IP addresses would be a problem.

Re:This has always been a problem (1)

00110011 (917752) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235444)

That still won't work for people behind transparent web proxies on ISPs such as AOL. Behind those proxies, one's IP would change between page loads.

Re:This has always been a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235404)

How so? You go to their website and log in. It then associates that IP address with you. If there are no connections to their tracker from that IP for a set period of time (say 10 minutes), it releases that association. So long as you fire up a client after logging in, there will be allowed activity from your IP address.

Re:This has always been a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235390)

No we're talking about MIRRORing the list of IPs. BitTorrent peers have no authentication control and will talk to anyone who talks to them. So if I modify the torrent with my tracker's address and log into your tracker, take your peer IPs and IDs I can mirror your network onto mine.

Re:This has always been a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235391)

Obviously you don't understand how DHT works.

DHT is designed to allow a torrent to work even when you are not connected to a tracker. Tracking information is distributed to the peers, eliminating the need for a centralized tracker.

If you do not want your torrent to have tracking information distributed by DHT you set the private flag.

The article is about bitcomet being banned from private communities for ignoring the private flag and distributing tracking information over DHT when it shouldn't be doing so.

Re:This has always been a problem (1)

P0ldy (848358) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235424)

This is inefficient for a number of reasons. What if my IP address changes? What if I use multiple computers from multiple locations with multiple IP addresses? What if I want to seed in two places at once to get a better ratio? What if I share an IP with hundreds of others (e.g., on a college campus) and some jerk does something to get the IP banned? The passkey system takes care of this, and is pretty efficient at what it does. The only problem is that if someone's passkey gets out, anyone can leech with that account because it is not bound to an IP address. Simply resetting the passkey takes care of that if it happens, but if someone has the torrent already and it wasn't created with the privacy flag on then any client with DHT (mainline or Azureus's implementation) can grab the torrent without being registered with the tracker and thus reporting no stats. This is also used if you ARE registered with the tracker and only want to leech without having your stats reported to the tracker. Though most trackers are getting wise enough to recognise this, the methods of doing so are tenuous (for example, banning someone who has downloaded 100 .torrent files and has 34MB transferred in his stats--like I said, tenuous).

Re:This has always been a problem (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235374)

there are also0 tricks with unique tokens a ummm err.. place i go to uses this to prevent sharing of torrents

More on BitComet... (0, Redundant)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235319)

For those who are unaware, BitComet is freeware p2p file shareing utility. http://www.bitcomet.com/index.htm [bitcomet.com]

They CLAIM bitcomet is blocked (3, Informative)

theheff (894014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235325)

...but it isn't. I'm part of a private tracker group that banned Bitcomet 3 days ago... I've been using BitComet since, and nothing at all has changed. I'll change clients when things actually change.

Re:They CLAIM bitcomet is blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235460)

could it not be that your DHT is relying on old information which still works now but will not update with more peers in future because it will be unable to.

private/pirate (4, Interesting)

Chmarr (18662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235327)

The title says "private trackers", but the text says "Pirate trackers" once... Is this a typo, or fruedian?? :)

Re:private/pirate (1)

daeley (126313) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235416)

Is this a typo, or fruedian?? :)

Sometimes the jokes just right themselves. ;-D

Re:private/pirate (5, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235485)

Sometimes the jokes just right themselves

And just as often, they wrong others.

One slip... (2, Funny)

Grandma Death (936904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235328)

BitComet does not recognize the 'private flag' on torrents originating from pirate BitTorrent trackers
Nice Freudian skip there.

Re:One slip... (1)

ballsanya (596519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235367)

Nice Freudian skip there.

Yeah, I remember those days. Freudian skip and Pavlov hopscotch...I still want to play when i hear bells....

Private torrent communities (2, Insightful)

user9918277462 (834092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235334)

Private torrent communities are the lifeblood of the BitTorrent scene. They are the only thing standing between BT and the sort of vast, content-less wasteland of Kazaa/Edonkey type systems. Yes, that means individual users need to be held accountable and poor quality clients that enable cheaters and leechers will unfortunately have to be banned. Such is life.

Private torrent communities-Faith. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235488)

"Private torrent communities are the lifeblood of the BitTorrent scene. They are the only thing standing between BT and the sort of vast, content-less wasteland of Kazaa/Edonkey type systems. Yes, that means individual users need to be held accountable and poor quality clients that enable cheaters and leechers will unfortunately have to be banned. Such is life."

<sarcasm>
Oh poor babies. I grieve for you.
</sarcasm>

Maybe if they run a green marker around their P2P client, the ban will be foiled?

Yarr! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235337)

BitComet does not recognize the 'private flag' on torrents originating from pirate BitTorrent trackers

Ye means 'pirate flag', ye rumpity old skalliwag! Th'old skull and cross bones! Yarr!

What's wrong with leechers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235339)

By taking and giving nothing back, leechers make these file sharing communities more robust, vibrant, and diverse. You should be thanking us.

ratio is a hare-brained idea anyway (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235340)

People who think they're a good idea really oughta read up on Pareto Efficiency.

Isn't DHT a good thing? (1)

psycln (937854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235345)

Isn't DHT advantageous for the network as a whole, distributing the tracking traffic to peers and saving on the bandwidth costs. Why ban a client for being nice to you!

The problem with DHT is that there is no single _unique_ implementation of this. Every client behaves in a different way (I'm talking to you azureus!).

Re:Isn't DHT a good thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235441)

...being nice to you.

Wha'?! These are private communities that are sharing files (legitimate files or not is beside the point). For someone to crash these communities and start hogging bandwidth is rude. These groups are right to ban a client that counters the idea of being a private community.

If 11 people and I want to set up a community to share files (eg, homebrewed stuffs, BF2 stunt movies, and/or other indy products), with only each other (as in "not with thousands of unknowns taking up bandwidth") then we should be able to do so without intrusion. Banning BitComet (if necessary) is a fine response and not News worthy.

pr0n?? (1)

Fluffy_Kitten (911430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235346)

Where am I gonna get my porn from now???

OK pretty much it's this (5, Informative)

bobertfishbone (897122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235351)

Bittorrent private trackers are sites that depend on a healthy share ratio for success. If you download something, it's tracked, and you must then upload a comparable number in order to stay a member of that site or receive certain benefits of membership. This creates a healthy environment of seeders--not like many public trackers, which have an inordinate amount of leechers. Bitcomet doesn't recognize or follow the conventions that enable such private trackers to exist. It can bypass that, and enable anyone to download from a private tracker site without worrying about a ratio. This is extremely detrimental to the private tracker. I'm in favor of this move by the private trackers; Bitcomet is misrepresenting itself as a fully-functional BT client.

Re:OK pretty much it's this (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235397)

Thank you for finally explaining to everyone what this means.

It's nuts to sign up for one of these sites anyway. Users must create uniquely identifiable userIDs for the site to track their stats. If and when the site is busted for whatever reason, the administrator will no doubt surrender the list of userIDs and corresponding IP addresses to the authorities, as has happened in the past.

Up with privacy! Down with elitism! Never ever sign on to a torrent tracker that maintains user ratios!

Re:OK pretty much it's this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235470)

You're using a bad one, then. Any decent private tracker keeps your IP address in memory only, while you're using a torrent.

Re:OK pretty much it's this (1)

Chemical (49694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235486)

I use BitComet and I've not experienced anything like that on private trackers like BoxTorrents. It seems to be able to log my UL/DL ratio accurately.

Somewhat ironic (2, Insightful)

acslat3r (848858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235352)

Gosh someone accessing their trackers for pirated movies and software WITHOUT their permission. I guess circumventing the adwords on their registration pages is a big no-no. Oh the horror...

This article is total gibberish (-1, Offtopic)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235362)

What does any of this mean to me? Anything at all?

Let's go back to Journalism 101 and remember that every article should include the "why does it matter?" part.

Re:This article is total gibberish (0, Offtopic)

Beelub (252407) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235383)

No. Apparently you mean "Why does this matter to Blakey Rat (99501". When did hjournalism 101 preach that only shit you care about is worth reporting?

Re:This article is total gibberish (0)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235415)

Well, since I have absolutely no clue what the article's talking about, it's a little hard for me to judge whether it matters to me or not, huh?

Re:This article is total gibberish (0, Offtopic)

Beelub (252407) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235442)

Actually it's a damn good clue that it's discussing things that don't matter to you. Things you have no knowlege of. This, however, in no way implies that it doesn't matter to anyone else. I doubt that good jounalisitic practices involve checking with you to see if the subject is important to you.

this is under better coverage at Slyck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235376)

Go to www.slyck.com

And no it is private not 'pirate' as one user says.

The jist of the change is since Bitcomet can spread downloaded files through its DHT layer, it bypasses the IP logging that private trackers have. Anyone thus can then download the file without having to bow under sharing ratios.

In better terms, Bitcomet is a leeching client. Even though I don't subscribe to any private torrent websites, I'd avoid Bitcomet for now, and switch to a nearly equal client, utorrent.

utorrent and Azureus also have DHT layers built in them, but they do it a somewhat better way.

Superseeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235378)

I've always hated BitComet anyway. I always have to ban BitComet people when I'm superseeding or nothing gets done. Although I've been told BitComet UDP plays well with superseeding, but AFAIK it still has the same behavior that the original post is talking about.

Funsharing didn't ban it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235382)

FunSharing Community(FSC) @ funsharing.net, didn't ban it yet. It's a solid BT community. They are slower than other sites, but very quality and they allow the use of BitComet.

Anyone who is new to BitTorrent should check it out as well, it's very user-friendly.

Another fact (5, Funny)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235388)

BitComet does not recognize the 'private flag' on torrents originating from pirate BitTorrent trackers

BitComet was also found to ignore the "evil bit." [faqs.org]

Uh... (1)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235408)

First off, if the trackers are so shit that the "private flag" is the only thing standing between the client and a download, the torrent site needs to update. Second, I use BitComet, and tbh, it rocks. Simple, fast, non-leechy. Lots of great features, memory efficient, yadda yadda. And every single torrent I've tried to download that had a private tracker URL errored with the "IP not recognised" error (or something similar). Ergo, someone is using shitty tracker software somewhere.

Is this article just FUD? (5, Informative)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235425)

What is the DHT Layer? I would consider myself as being torrent savvy, but I have no clue what this means.

A little bit of research later...

DHT stands for Distributed Hash Table ... DHT is a networking protocol that enhances the scalability and efficiency of decentralized networks by creating a virtual index rather than broadcasting search queries. Decentralized networks that utilized DHT technology are able to search and locate files significantly faster than networks that do not use it.
source (non-authoritative): http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=772 [slyck.com]

DHT is a layer added on top of the BitTorrent network to assist in Azureus' performance. BitTorrent is a distinct networking protocol, of which is specified by creator Bram Cohen. Anything existing outside of those specifications is not BitTorrent.

source (non-authoritative): http://www.unitethecows.com/forums/showthread.php? t=10991 [unitethecows.com]
(So DHT is not part of the bittorrent specification; At least, it wasn't in May 2005, but who knows now...)

So basically, my understanding now is that the DHT Layer is what allows for the decentralization of torrents. Thus, by not respecting the "private" flag, the clients can leech all day without it affecting their ratio. Slap me if I am wrong or missing something, but aren't most (re:99.999%) of these "communities" that care about leechers, ratios, and keeping their torrents to themselves going to be trading/torrenting copyrighted content/material? Call me crazy, but I just have this hunch that this isn't exactly the latest Knoppix torrent. And then you can call me crazy again, but I must ask why we care what these "communities" ban or don't ban?

But then again, this is slashdot where anything that approaches conservative or rational gets modded down by the mob.

*typo*correction*incomplete_thought* (1)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235465)

Oops, I wrote:
And then you can call me crazy again, but I must ask why we care what these "communities" ban or don't ban?
-
Sorry about that, what I meant to say was:
And then you can call me crazy again, but I must ask why we care which clients these "communities" allow or not (since they are underground/illegal, and not really helping the linux/open-source movement, but rather cast a negative light bittorrent).

About Azureus... (2, Informative)

bobertfishbone (897122) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235430)

This is the message from one of the private trackers I frequent:
# Show 2005-12-10 - BitComet

We are following the example led by other private bittorrent trackers and we have banned all BitComet clients. Perhaps having so many sites banning it will encourage their developers to do something about it.

The reason why: BitComet, like Azureus, allows the sharing of peers via a DHT system. Azureus implemented SecureTorrents into their client, which we coded into our tracker. BitComet followed and implemented a similar private flag. Unfortunately, the BitComet authors decided not to code what they said ("BitComet will not add DHT Network as Backup Tracker even all the trackers can not be connected later, and will also disable Peer Exchange between peers") and instead ignore this flag after a period of time.

If the BitComet developers create a new version which behaves as it should, we will happily change our stance on this. But at the moment, BitComet is not welcome here.

If you want a replacement client, we recommend Torrent and Azureus.

hypocrisy anyone? (2, Insightful)

nr (27070) | more than 7 years ago | (#14235434)

Uh, so thieves are angry that other thieves are stealing their lot? how funny..

In other words: Private Trackers ban themselves (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14235439)

Here are the bittorrent stats seem by my mldonkey bittorrent client for the last month(non-stop)

According to this they are banning 60% of bittorrent traffic... not a intelligent move IMHO.

BitTorrent Total Uptime: 29 days, 20h:10m 2578216 seconds
Brand Seen
Total 88212 (100%)
BitComet 52601 (60%)
BitLord 30318 (34%)
Azureus 2392 (3%)
Mainline 839 (1%)
BitTornado 466 (1%)
MLdonkey 433 (0%)
ABC 345 (0%)
uTorrent 334 (0%)
Shareaza 206 (0%)

If it relies on cooperation, it's broken (4, Insightful)

Jepler (6801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235478)

If this "private" flag relies on cooperation from clients, then it is broken.

Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235479)

Pirates get pissy over people taking advantage of their generosity. Fuck off. Jackasses like these give the entertainment industry ammunition which they use to fuck up honest people who just want to enjoy the multitude of neat things technology allows us do with music and movies legally. Repeat: Fuck off. In addition: Tough luck. And in conclusion: suck my balls. Thank you.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...