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!

Researchers Create Selfish BitTorrent Client

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the surprised-it-took-this-long dept.

The Internet 281

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the computer science department at the University of Washington have released BitTyrant, a new BitTorrent client that is designed to improve download performance via strategic selection of peers and upload rates. Their results call into question the effectiveness of BitTorrent's tit-for-tat reciprocation strategy which was designed to discourage selfish users. Clients are available for Windows, OS X, and Linux."

cancel ×

281 comments

In other news... (5, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444832)

internet bandwidth usage has just gone up by 300% at the University of Washington... Scientists are baffled and blame global warming.

Re:In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445130)

man bear pig!!!!!

Torrent of Client (2, Informative)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445482)

...because there connection seems a little slow now (a friend was getting but 0.2KB/s).

Clicky to pirate bay [thepiratebay.org]

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445510)

In Soviet Russia, Global warming causes increase in bittorrent usage!

Well, uhm. Ban the client? (0)

repvik (96666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444860)

AFAIK, all bittorrent clients have a "UserAgent"-kind of field. If that happens to be BitTyrant, ban the user.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (4, Insightful)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444906)

If you bothered to RTFA, you'd realise selfish!=bad.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (3, Insightful)

jdray (645332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444964)

I didn't even have to RTFA to figure that out (yay me, right?). AFAIK, most people who could (would) dediate a serious amount of bandwidth to downloading content quickly would be likely to dedicate a serious slice to uploading, therefore enriching the available bandwith for everyone.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445884)

If you bothered to RTFA, you'd realise selfish!=bad.

That's what Gordon Gecko said.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (4, Informative)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444910)

Yes, problem is it's similar to changing UserAgent tag in IE or FireFox. Too easy. It's not very viable solution.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (2, Insightful)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444916)

Hi, I'm Bill Gates, and I'm going to give you ONE MILLION DOLLARS if you send your credit card info to me.

See the problem?

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (4, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445254)

See the problem?
Yes, a million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over nine billion dollars a year!

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445392)

Yes, a million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days.
Yup, it would only get you 1430 SCO licenses (CA residents add sales tax. Void where prohibited. YCST).

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (4, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445448)

Yup, it would only get you 1430 SCO licenses (CA residents add sales tax. Void where prohibited. YCST).
Yes, or 0.0000006 RIAA settlements [slashdot.org] .

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (2, Informative)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444946)

AFAIK, all bittorrent clients have a "UserAgent"-kind of field. If that happens to be BitTyrant, ban the user.

If it's anything like a browsers UserAgent field, I have a set of WWW::Mechanize perl scripts pretending to be firefox 2.0 on windows.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17444952)

read the article, it will actually help uploads be more efficient.

Just use BitTyrant yourself :) (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444966)

The UserAgent field is not guarenteed to be accurate, just like the HTTP UserAgent field.

The nice thing about BitTyrant is that this strategy only works if everybody else is using different BitTorrent tools. A BitTorrent client which can reasonably detect leechers from sharers (and only shares to those that share) should finish off tools like BitTyrant. In fact, BitTyrant itself would probably kill other BitTyrant users.

Re:Just use BitTyrant yourself :) (2, Informative)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445076)

RTFA

That is exactly what the client does

basucly it alocated upload so that it will likely improve performance, if it can not come up with a spot that will improve performance then it will dump that alocation on other users.

The only downside is that peopel who would hit and run can do so faster.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (5, Informative)

tdc_vga (787793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444974)

No offense, but that can be spoofed quite easily. Make it say BitTorrent, uTorrent, or Azureus and then what? As the co-founder of Azureus this has always been a problem and threat to the BT protocol. The best clients can do is make sure packets are being spread once they're sent to another person. The algorithm works like this --send a "rare" packet, watch to make sure another client shows up with that rare packet in X time. Clients should send their rarest packets first, to keep the swarm happy. So if the packet doesn't show up, you've got a leech and your drop him in the Queue. TdC

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

eklitzke (873155) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445328)

Yes, it is true that there is a "User Agent" field in the bit torrent protocol, but of course this is easy to modify. My favorite client [rakshasa.no] has a bug in it that has caused it to be banned from some private trackers. Since this was hurting me on some files that I download, I modified the user agent string to cause the client to identify itself as uTorrent 1.6. Problem solved!

I think that the user agent field is fixed width, meaning that even if you don't have access to the source code to your client, an ambitious user could just change the string in the binary itself.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445756)


Yes, it is true that there is a "User Agent" field in the bit torrent protocol, but of course this is easy to modify. My favorite client has a bug in it that has caused it to be banned from some private trackers. Since this was hurting me on some files that I download, I modified the user agent string to cause the client to identify itself as uTorrent 1.6. Problem solved!

I think that the user agent field is fixed width, meaning that even if you don't have access to the source code to your client, an ambitious user could just change the string in the binary itself.


Hello, what problems were there with libtorrent? I use rtorrent exclusively, and sometimes I seem to get ignored when there are seeds at 100%, so I wonder if I might be experiencing something similar. Any information you could share would be appreciated. Does the bug hurt performance for the swarm? I'm greedy, but I don't want to do something taht will hurt other folks if I change the UA string.

Sorry, doesn't work... (4, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445362)

BitTyrant (read the paper) [i]follows the protocol[/i].

From any other peer, you can't tell whether someone is using the BitTyrant bandwidth selection strategy or the default allocatino strategy, and user agent is, of course, meaningless.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

Scyth3 (988321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445494)

Like everyone else has said -- The useragent field is modifiable since most of the clients are open source (or are designed to emulate other clients). I've designed a few large scale P2P protocols, and this is the typical issue with the open source clients for certain protocols. There's of course ways of defeating the "rogue" clients, and that is by detecting packets and their response times. AKA: I need a rare chunk that you have, so I request it. I wait a full 4 seconds, and haven't received this rare chunk yet. So I'll just drop you from my peers list, and/or check with another peer to see if they get the same response.

There's a few ways of going about this, but that's one of the easiest :)

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445498)

When bored, I tend to manually select and ban leechers from the azureus peer list.
Maybe there should be a plugin to lower upload traffic to such hosts.

Re:Well, uhm. Ban the client? (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445818)

That would be a great idea, except for the facts that the client can be spoofed (trivially), and that BitTyrant is simply selective about who it shares with - but it still shares.

Not really selfish (5, Informative)

m50d (797211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444862)

It looks like all it's doing is trying to allocate its uploads more efficiently. Which, assuming it works, should improve things overall, and (if it works) may even get adopted into the official protocol.

Re:Not really selfish (2, Interesting)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444976)

But it prioritizes users with high upload/download speeds. It's better the way it's now - everybody gets their files. Maybe later but it's equal. At least people seed for longer.

If you're after communities and sharing current model is better. If you're after fast download but shorter torrent lives - go for new one.

Re:Not really selfish (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445080)

If you're after communities and sharing current model is better. If you're after fast download but shorter torrent lives - go for new one.

If you're after communities and sharing then you're already part of a private tracker, which keeps a tab on your ratio no matter what client you use. Public trackers are a free-for-all grab. I often grab torrents when the seeds are many and peers few, and don't feel bad about that at all.

Re:Not really selfish (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445086)

Ratio sites would probably not ban the client - people will use it just to get the file faster and seed longer (face it - the only way to keep a good ratio is to get in early). Non-ratio'd site will probably ban it because they'd just leech and run.

Wish that ratio'd sites would take thafact into account - the older the torrent, the less likely it'll be downloaded by new people and the harder it is for seed to keep their ratio. Not everyone can bittorrent at work and refresh every 5 minutes...

Re:Not really selfish (1)

miyako (632510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445126)

The biggest bottleneck for people getting files off bittorrent isn't their download speed, but the overall upload speed. Even with fairly large swarms, the overall speed can be pretty bad, since most people get crap for upload, so it kinda makes sense for the person who is uploading at the highest rate to get the file first, so they can then upload at their higher rate to everyone in the swarm.
Now what would be interesting would be if they client would give priority to those with more upload up to a certain point, then cut them off, so as to keep them waiting around (and uploading) to get the last few percent of the file longer.

Re:Not really selfish (4, Interesting)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445366)

"But it prioritizes users with high upload/download speeds. It's better the way it's now - everybody gets their files."

I disagree to an extent. What is high upload/download speed to one node is not neccessarily high upload/download speed to another node. It just depends on the network topography. It's possible for a DSL-connected node to have a faster upload/download connection to a node on a dial-up line than a T3 if the dial-up connection is significantly closer from a network standpoint. If done properly, prioritizing based on uploads could lead to more regionalized torrent relationships. Such a setup still has its downsides but I'm not convinced it's worse or even unfair.

Re:Not really selfish (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445154)

Well, it targets uploads at those worth bribing. So those with loads of bandwidth get complete copies faster.

It all depends on how much impact it has that those who don't seed leave the swarm earlier, since they finish faster. Likely no real damage to the network though.

Just great (1, Informative)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444864)

First some crap clients allow easy tunneling of torrents through tor network (http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org] ), nearly choking it, and now this.

Re:Just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445070)

Hey dumbass, this isn't a bad thing. Read the article. They actually improved the client.

I'm surprised this is modded up? What the hell is wrong with you morons?

Re:Just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445148)

Try being an admin at an ISP. My apathetic views on file sharing turned into disgust a long time ago.

Re:Just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445270)

ISP:s loove p2p. It's easy money. Who are you?

leechers (1)

spazimodo (97579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444884)

I'd rather see some development towards somehow preventing a client from finishing a download until his Down/Up ratio is at least 0.75. This would be difficult to do since you can't trust the client.

Re:leechers (1)

Frez (726595) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444926)

Assuming there's leechers left...

leechers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17444954)

I'd rather see some development towards somehow preventing a mom from finishing buttsecks until her Down/Up ratio is at least 0.75. This would be difficult to do since you can't trust your mom.

Re:leechers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445044)

Not only would that require an immense overhaul of how bittorrent works, but it's a terrible idea in the first place. Even private trackers that meticulously track your ratio don't do it on a per-torrent basis because that standard is often impossible to meet on that level. If there are too many seeders in a swarm when you join it then you cannot get a good ratio for that torrent.

Re:leechers (3, Insightful)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445370)

And when there's 12 seeders and no one besides you downloading...then what? Its rare, but that does happen.

Re:leechers (4, Interesting)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445700)

Not rare, it's extremely common on private sites with specialized material [dimeadozen.org] . I've had trouble raising my ratio above 0.85 on DIME, in spite of having 250KB/s upload. It's annoying, but there's not much you can do about it.

Re:leechers (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17446036)

I'm probably wrong on this, but doesn't the tracker keep a verified copy of the u/d stats? Probably just wishful thinking on my apart I accept.

G.W. Bush comment (-1, Troll)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444912)

"Hang this tyrant too !". ;)

Thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17444936)

a lot assmunches

Sounds interesting (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444950)

However it will be only a matter of a couple days before people/trackers just start banning the client. (even thoguh it soundsl ike it is not actualy a bad client).

The only possible downside of the client is that people who regularly hit and run will be doign so that much faster (and thus end with an even lower ratio).

so, a nifty tool in the hands of the godly, and an abomination in the hands of sinners. (or somethign to that effect)

The trackers will not abide. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444958)

The private trackers, which require login and facilitate banning of users who abuse the system, will simply deal with this as they always have. That's always been one of the protocol's inherent defenses against something like this.

Re:The trackers will not abide. (4, Insightful)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445274)

Actually this client would likely be favoured by the private tracker sites.

The private tracker already gives you plenty of incentive to make sure your ratio is >1 - even asside from basic morals.

The design of this client means those with higher speed uploads available will complete sooner, and thus you will end up with more high speed seeders.

Seeders who since they are members of private trackers are probably going to stick around until ratio >1

True I admit on piblic trackers something like this may not be as helpful or beneficial, but you can't have everything.

Re:The trackers will not abide. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17446090)

Aside from basic morals? LOL Moral principles don't guide people who are illegally downloading.

Greasey kid stuff (0, Flamebait)

agent420 (1046380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444972)

Bah. Torrents are only good for wannabees and virals anyway. Just make sure your isp has your mums contact info correct for the riaa.

Re:Greasey kid stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445710)

Nice opinion, but while you leets are busy with your private sites, bittorrent has taken over world.

Rule #1 (1, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444978)

Never trust the client.

I'm surprised it took this long.

Re:Rule #1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445204)

RTFA. So many ignorant comments.

Ummm... it doesn't? (5, Informative)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445358)

It doesn't trust the client. It's just greedier about allocating "spare" bandwidth--that is, bandwidth the other clients can't pay you back for. From their FAQ:

Q: How is BitTyrant different from existing BitTorrent clients?

BitTorrent differs from existing clients in its selection of which peers to unchoke and send rates to unchoked peers. Suppose your upload capacity is 50 KBps. If you've unchoked 5 peers, existing clients will send each peer 10 KBps, independent of the rate each is sending to you. In contrast, BitTyrant will rank all peers by their receive / sent ratios, preferentially unchoking those peers with high ratios. For example, a peer sending data to you at 20 KBps and receiving data from you at 10 KBps will have a ratio of 2, and would be unchoked before unchoking someone uploading at 10 KBps (ratio 1). Further, BitTyrant dynamically adjusts its send rate, giving more data to peers that can and do upload quickly and reducing send rates to others.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445408)

"Never trust the client"? In BitTorrent, they're ALL clients (except for the initial seed). BitTorrent is practically a master class in how to get a collection of selfish clients to cooperate.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445786)

Never trust the client.

Name just one way in which Bittorrent breaks this rule...

I'll wait.

Not necessarily good (4, Interesting)

grimsweep (578372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17444996)

Selfish selection of peers can lead to cliques of clients on the same network. Tit-for-tat has been proven as a highly effective strategy in games resembling the iterated prisoner's dilemna, but it can be defeated when a large enough group of of agents cooperate. This link [discourse.net] has more.

Re:Not necessarily good (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445406)

Could you start playing tit-for-tat with groups along with individuals?

Re:Not necessarily good (4, Interesting)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445452)

But the ISP wants to encourage the development of such cliques. It can be directed to keep traffic inside the ISPs bounds.

Interestingly, if bittorrent clients start "cheating", ISPs will be happier, and you will see less throttling.

Ratboy

heh heh heh..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445002)

"Their results call into question the effectiveness of BitTorrent's tit-for-tat reciprocation strategy which was designed to discourage selfish users."

he said tit,...heh hehe heh.

Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445016)

Just use a leecher modded [leecher.cc] BT client if you really don't care about ruining BT for your faster download. This has been around for AGES...

Altruistic Client instead, please? (1)

damacus (827187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445034)

I'd like to see the opposite. Haven't these researchers heard of ratio sites? It'd be cool if, when among 20 seeders and 5 peers, my client were involved in the uploading more often. As it stands, in that situation my client usually appears to be sitting idle most of the time, or occasionally uploading 5 - 10K/sec for 30s to a minute before idling again.

Make my client have the ability to seed more proactively and I'll be happy.

Re:Altruistic Client instead, please? (1)

terrahertz (911030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445650)

Not that I would be surprised that you have already heard of the feature, and not to say that this is the ideal answer to your question/desire, but most clients do include a "force seeding" feature. Many trackers I frequent enforce a ratio, and if "regular" seeing isn't getting me where I'd like to be, then I just force seed a torrent until I'm there. Works great for me.

Perhaps a configurable option for global "aggressive seeding" would be ideal though.

Prioritizing the Peers when Seeding (1)

damacus (827187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445968)

Like you mentioned, one can set Azureus or most other clients to seed indefinitely. What I'd ideally like to see is the opposite of what BitTyrant does. BitTyrant optimizes by selectively choosing peers based on up to down ratio, weighted by upload capacity. I'm assuming at this point that it doesn't do any special handing for seeding.

What would be cool is if there were the ability to have the client selectively prioritize based on completion status and download rate, especially given a limited number of upload slots. Something that will not only guarantee I'll use the amount of upstream I intend, but which will also prolong the amount of demand for my seed. (instead of being optimized to create more seeds, thus reducing my specific seed's demand.)

Not so selfish. (5, Insightful)

ckdake (577698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445042)

RTFA. They didn't create a client that is "selfish" by trying to avoid uploading. They created a client that is selfish by first allocating more upload capacity to other clients that will send them more when they upload more, and only allocate the remaining upload capacity to clients where benefits from increased uploading are not certain. If you read their paper, they regularly bring up the effects of this on the entire network and they don't know if it's good, bad, or has any effect on the network (and not for a lack of trying)

Re:Not so selfish. (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445724)

``RTFA. They didn't create a client that is "selfish" by trying to avoid uploading. They created a client that is selfish by first allocating more upload capacity to other clients that will send them more when they upload more, and only allocate the remaining upload capacity to clients where benefits from increased uploading are not certain.''

In other words, they do what any rational client should do.

Re:Not so selfish. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445864)

At a glance, it looks like it has both positive and negative effects. Isolated (ie, slow connection to everyone like dialup) clients are going to lose out since serving them yields such a low payout. Meanwhile fast connections get preferential treatment since they can so easily be served. I don't know how much tit for tat is permitted. It may turn out that one will need to serve slow clients in order to keep downloading, but I suspect that's probably not the case.

Otherwise, it should result in more efficient use of network resources since overall bandwidth is a bit higher.

Surprised It Took This Long (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445050)

I'm surprised it took this long. Or is it just that we're only hearing about it now, but such clients have existed for ages?

By the way, am I right in thinking good behavior can never be enforced in peer to peer systems?

Re:Surprised It Took This Long (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445334)

This isn't necessarily bad behavior. It is distinctly uneven, but not necessarily bad.

If the tracker has a lot of people who seed more than they download, then a few people using this client will help increase the total number of seeders, meaning that there are more people capable of providing a specific portion of the torrent, which should allow for maximum download speeds for whoever is left.

If the tracker has a lot of people who seed less than they download, it means that there will be more load on the people who do stick around to seed, and less chance of maximizing the download speeds for whoever is left.

It's hard to say what the effect will be (even the researchers who created the client don't really know) because it's so situationally dependant. And even with completely 'fair' clients, slower uploaders (and thus slower downloaders) will probably not get the whole torrent if faster up/downloaders grab it and disconnect from the torrent. It seems that the new client just makes the entire process a bit faster overall, whether the end result is everyone being happy or only a few people being happy.

uTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445052)

Had issues with leechers with ABC so I switched to uTorrent. It automagically stops sending data to anyone who drops below a certain ratio. In short, if you aren't uploading to me, I am not uploading to you. Whereas with ABC, I'd be throwing 50KB/s up and getting mabye 5KB/s down or reverse, with uTorrent it's usually been 40 up and 30-50 down.

Simple, effective, failsafe.

Trivial result (0)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445090)

Of course a protocol can be taken advantage of, how is this news? But, responsible researchers would point out the flaw, tell the bittorrent people and come up with a fix or work with the bittorrent people to make a fix. At most, responsible researchers would make proof of concept (which can be done by paper and pencil btw), NOT making a full blown client and publish it for 3 different platforms.

Something tells me that these guys are looking for there 15 minutes instead of doing good research.

Re:Trivial result (5, Insightful)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445188)

Did you actually read the paper?

They are looking at improving download time for that user and the overall swarm by the use of their algorithm.

The idea being that you share all the upload space you have - but you do it in such a way as to maximise what you can download in the same amount of time.

This in turn means that when you have finished downloading the file the number of copies within the swarm will have increased - also those that shared with you more will have been able to download quicker themselves.

A client like this will penalise selfish or greedy uploaders far more than the normal client as it rewards those that give back.

Give a leach a block and he will have downloaded that block, teach a leach to seed and he shall have blocks for the rest of his life.

Re:Trivial result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445202)

Responsible commenters would rtfa, and formulate an intellgient response.

Something tells me this guy was just looking for his +5 Insightful without having to read anything.

Clue: selfish != leeching.

Re:Trivial result (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445670)

Responsible researchers would actually RTFA...

Something tells me that this guy is looking for karma instead of doing good research.

Even better...downloading without ever uploading (5, Interesting)

meese (9260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445092)

Some folks at ETH Zurich took it one step further, and wrote a client - BitThief [dcg.ethz.ch] - that doesn't upload and yet still can download as fast as a regular client. This is especially valuable in countries that define copyright violation to be the uploading of content.

Re:Even better...downloading without ever uploadin (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445564)

Awesome! If everyone used that client, the MPAA/RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Even better...downloading without ever uploadin (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445592)

Or just being a leech you mean. How's the air all the way up on top of your high horse?

Re:Even better...downloading without ever uploadin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445796)

My haxored ctorrent does that too, duh, just comment out the right bits of code & tada!

Enlightened Self-Interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445174)

"Enlightened Self-Interest" would be a better term than "selfish".

Har Har! (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445290)

Take that, yer Darwin loving monkey nephyew's!

Nothing to worry about here... (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445324)

The anti-leech technology of the bittorrent protocol remains effective. Those ranting about this just haven't bothered to read... This client (despite the unfortunate name) is just smarter about how to use upload bandwidth, in an async world.

In fact, I would say this is an IMPROVEMENT in some ways over bittorrent's default behavior, as it will dedicate more of your outgoing bandwidth to higher-speed peers. They, presumably, can then serve up more data to others than a low-speed peer reasonably could.

Instead of being the end of bittorrent, this could really improve the health of the P2P network, increasing speeds and decreasing download times for everyone (not only those using this program).

Re:Nothing to worry about here... (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445750)

It seems like this is just a scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Re:Nothing to worry about here... (1)

Vreejack (68778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445942)

It seems that the first 90% of posters did not bother to RTFA, and so I had to wade through a lot of redundant and irrelevant garbage to get here. I am tempted to use this client, but I am puzzled. Did they fork Azureus? I would have thought this could simply be run as a plugin. The things they are doing here with BitTyrant are things I have tried to effect manually by tweaking Azureus, but without the automatic dynamic response.

A welcome feature (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445332)

It would be a welcome feature to be able to tune my uploads so that I don't kill my connection when downloading over bittorrent. the --max-upload-rate feature seems to make my bittorrent client do an endless recursive loop that ends up crashing the client. I have a very low upload cap, around 15 KBPS, and when it gets maxed, I'd like to be able to limit the connection just a little, to leave room for ACK packets.

Re:A welcome feature (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445388)

That sort of behavior really seems to belong in the OS or at the firewall, but that upload rate sounds awful. Are you using GPRS for torrenting?

Re:A welcome feature (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445450)

I'm using low-speed cable. It 1 Mbit, which gives fast (enough) download, but slow upload. I don't really send out a lot of data, so it's not much of a problem. Most cable providers I know of cap even the high speed access to 40 or 50 KBPS (notice the capital B), because they don't want people using their home computers as servers. 15 KBPS isn't really that bad, but when you have a lot of connections going out, it tends to have very slow response times.

Re:A welcome feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445456)

Suggest you get a better client. Neither BitTorrent (the client) BitTornado, Azureus nor uTorrent have the problem you describe.

Re:A welcome feature (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445676)

I use the official bittorent client, bittorrent-curses. And it does contain the problem I speak of. It also happens with bittorrent-console.

Re:A welcome feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445936)

There's actually a plugin for Azureus that will automatically adjust the upload rate so that it won't kill your connection. Look for "Auto Upload", or maybe "Upload Shaper."

BitComet? (0, Offtopic)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445378)

So...yet another BT client that will be banned from private torrent sites.

azureus fork (0, Redundant)

goarilla (908067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445552)

when you see the picture, it really looks like an
azureus http://azureus.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] fork even the icons are similar

Re:azureus fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445702)

It does just look like a fork, it IS an azureus fork. It is stated on the website.

Re:azureus fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17445744)

If you'd bothered to read the article...
Familiar - BitTyrant is based on modifications to Azureus 2.5, currently the most popular BitTorrent client. All of our changes are under the hood. You'll find the GUI identical to Azureus, with optional additions to display statistics relevant to BitTyrant's operation.

Re:azureus fork (2, Informative)

deroby (568773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445940)

It's amazing what can be found in that something typically referred to as 'the article' : ...
[Overview] ...
Familiar - BitTyrant is based on modifications to Azureus 2.5, currently the most popular BitTorrent client. All of our changes are under the hood. You'll find the GUI identical to Azureus, with optional additions to display statistics relevant to BitTyrant's operation. ...

Try to give it a spin (5, Funny)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445790)

I'd love to give it a spin, but at 2kbs download for the client installer I'll be here all night. Maybe I can find a torrent for it for a faster download...oh the irony.

Super Seeding? (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445792)

What's the difference between this and "Super Seeding"?

Ironically enough (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17445816)

I'm downloading the OSX version right now and the progress is so slow. Getting 5k/s on my 8Mbps connection. Surely they should have torrented the thing???

Re:Ironically enough (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17446000)

as an update: It's now running at about 2.4ks-1.

No one know of a torrent for it?

Re:Ironically enough (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17446118)

another update: it just trickled away to nothing and failed.

Slashdotted I presume so I'll wait.

Yall quit whining (1)

alta (1263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17446116)

I have it installed, and I'm currently downloading (Full T1) at 50k and uploading at 60k... I'd say that's more than fair.

This does seem to go up and down more than bitcomet though. in the last Hour I've seen it up to 110/115 and as low as 50k/60k. Maybe this one just averages the xfer rate a lot more often, not producing nearly as smooth of an average as BC.
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...