Hello,
I have a simple question
Does BitComet support the µTP Protocol? If yes, where can I activate and deactivate this feature?
Thank you very much!
No
Thats to bad. It’s useful. Torrents are perfect candidates for UDP traffic. I use Vuze, Bitcomet, uTorrent, and Deluge on various OS. The only one that discriminates against uTP is Bitcomet. When I need to avoid traffic shaping, I use Vuze with encryption + uTP. Without it, my traffic slowly degrades to turtle speeds if I leave a torrent open to long due to ISP shaping. As such, I am not able to use Bitcomet from the office, only at home where there are no corporate rats being snoopy. The encryption helps avoid the shaping, and the uTP doesnt get in the way of my tcp traffic causing any latency issues. uTP does wonders for helping with latency. Its as close as you can get to a QoS setup, without actually using a QoS app/device.
First of all BitComet doesn’t discriminate against uTP. uTP was developed by uTorrent in order to allow for throttling of p2p traffic. When it was introduced even the staff in the support forum were advising users to disable it because of some serious issues. I’ve no doubt it’s been improved, but if you want bitcomet developers to consider implementing it into the client, you’ll have to convince them.
If you want to consider the topic of discrimination between clients, BitComet solved the problem of not being able to source files from non-bittorrent sources by aligning piece boundries and all we heard from competing clients was a lot of whining about the padding files that were created, but if they wanted to work together they could have coded their clients to ignore them and we all could move forward with multi-protocol and cross-protocol downloading, but as far as I’m aware BitComet is still the only client that offers these features. Others benefit from them indirectly, but if they were to incorporate the technology, we’d all be much better off. BitComet’s LTseed protocol is also much more useful and effective to the average user than uTP is in my opinion. Using it you can do things like download unseeded torrents and become a seeder yourself, or just download the torrent much faster. With all the advanced features BitComet has introduced in the past 5 years, uTP just seems insignificant… in my opinion.
I agree, uTP is insignificant. This must be the reason that all popular clients except for bitcomet include it. This is great thinking! It kind of reminds me of the Microsoft + Minecraft issue. It only picked up Minecraft AFTER it became popular. This is how I view bitcomet’s method of innovation. Sure, it’ll come to bitcomet… after someone else has proved it works. uTP is not insignificant, it’s been proven to do exactly what it perports and I use it when the need arises. The only reason Bitcomet is even on my machine is because I like the UI compared to the others. Not because of any ground breaking feature list. Because lets face it, it’s got nothing on any other client feature wise. Do I discourage people from using Bitcomet? No. Actually I encourage people to use it but only because it’s got one of the simpler UI’s available.
BTW, my goal isnt to persuade bitcomet to do anything. I was simply commenting on a subject in which I’ve experienced myself. If I have to persuade, then you’ve already proven that you have failed in the innovation dept. Innovation is about taking on ideas of your own. Not being persuaded by someone else. That is not called innovation. Thats called “The Microsoft syndrome”.
Come up with something better than uTP. Maybe build in some QoS functionality of your own and tout it as better than uTP and see what happens. Prove people wrong.
And since you brought up the subject of: “BitComet solved the problem of not being able to source files from non-bittorrent sources by aligning piece boundries”. I would respectfully disagree because you made other clients waste bandwidth by having to DL a 2nd file for every single file in a multi-file torrent. It was a complete disaster as described here: However, the one universally annoying aspect of BitComet –padding files – is still there, and is the default setting when creating torrents.
http://torrentfreak…with-junk-data/ and https://torrentfreak…natives-120819/
I agree with the author, polluting other client’s with useless files is completely unfair and total discrimination. Your client should never force another client to take ANY sort of “preventative” action. The keyword here is preventative, not inclusive. If they want to include your technology, then they can code something and it’ includes it. But without coding anything, they should not be affected at all. You method of thinking is backwards, you’re telling them to code something whether they want to use the technology or not. Thats not only backwards, but discriminatory as well since it forces someone to do something that they did not need to do previously. You’re just lucky that it hasnt really annoyed the developers a lot or they WOULD code something. Ya. Code in some client blacklists so that it defaults to blacklisting bitcomet which alienates bitcomet users. Wouldnt that suck eh. It’s been done before (and been done against bitcomet many times in the past for its bad coding practices/ideas/technologies), and I wouldnt doubt that some people still use the built in client blacklists of other clients to ban bitcomet users for this reason or some other reason. You need to be careful in how you implement things and be mindful that you’re not the boss. Your actions may some day alienate you from other clients to the point where it makes no sense to use bitcomet anymore and that would benefit NO ONE. Not to mention it has absolutely nothing at all to do with uTP which was the topic here to begin with. But you insisted, so I figured, meh, why not. Let’m know that users also see this type of practice as ethically wrong as well as technically wrong whether it works or not is completely irrelevant to the point which you are missing.
Lets use LTS and uTP as an example so you can see it from other developers perspectives.
uTP: It’s a technology created by uTorrent. Ok, so were you forced to code something to STOP uTorrent clients from monkeying around with your own client? No. But you COULD code something to incorporate the technology and add it in as an option if you want. Cool, ok, so thats the CORRECT way to create a new technology that could benefit everyone.
Now lets look at LTS:
LTS: It’s a technology created by BitComet. Ok, so were you forced to code something to STOP bitComet clients from monkeying around with your own client? YES. So you mean I have to code something even if I dont want the technology?! What the F. Screw that. Here, I’ll code something for ya. It’s called a F’ing blacklist. There, problem solved. Now my users can wage war against your client if they so wish to do so.
Why do you thing client blacklists exist? It’s developers answer to your LTS form of “innovation”. It’s all wrong. The correct way to innovate is the uTP method of innovation where the technology does not interfere with other clients if they do not wish to incorporate it.
I am curious (since I am a staunch hater of LTS), why do you compare LTS to uTP? They arent even in the same ball park. They do completely different things. All LTS does is keep torrents alive by forcing unsuspecting people who dont know what it is into uploading while they are not doing anything. uTP mitigates the need to do any kind of traffic shaping. It allows you to play a latency sensitive game for example, while you are downloading at the same time. LTS does the complete opposite. It destroys your latency even when you’re not downloading. I have to turn LTS off for that reason alone. Otherwise I cant stream to twitch effectively because LTS is hogging all the latency (not bandwidth, which is different). The second I turn off LTS, my twitch streams magically stop buffering? How do you figure that a feature I would want? I do enough seeding while I am downloading. I dont need to CONTINUE seeding after I am done. If the torrent isnt popular enough to have people dl’ing it all the time, then why on gods earth would I want to waste BW keeping it running. Supply/Demand > LTS. A ratio of 1:1 is good enough for everyone. Theres no need to get greedy just because someone doesnt understand the technology. If I had the source for BC, the first thing I would do is rip out LTS as a default option. The only person it benefits is the original seeder (which does not constitute 95% of the average user population).
When I refer to LTS for comparisons and such, I was referring to padding. IDK why I kept typing LTS. But you know which technologies I am referring to. Probably because I hate LTS so much, that I subconsciously want to bash it as much as possible. It’s the worst default option ever. It only works because it suckers unsuspecting people into using it, which benefits everyone EXCEPT the poor guy who doesnt know what he’s doing. Thats deceptive and ethically wrong in my book.
The only thing I was able to get from your lenghty rant is that you don’t understand what LTseed is or why it was created, you don’t understand how easy it is for a client to ignore padding files, and you don’t understand that this is a community forum, staffed and administrated by bitcomet users.
Regarding the benefits of LTseed, I can only enlighten you if you’re willing to learn, but it seems you’ve already made your mind up and I’m not inclined to waste any more time here. If you are truly interested in learning, I’ve posted quite a bit of info on how the technology has helped the entire community regardless of the client they use.
Topic Closed