Automatic Coding

I don't think you quite understand what a VPN does for security, having a VPN isn't secure, it's how you use it. Technically, any data coming out of the end point is still just as insecure as data going into the in point, if not less so (Due to being a random company who gets all your data). The only time a VPN would be more secure would be if you're at a location where you trust a random company who owns the outpoint more than you trust your in point (E.G. a public location). Anyway, does your VPN send incoming packets (E.G. non-related packets) to you? If so, you're probably ruining your security even more than you would if you were behind a nat (E.G. from your local in point), if not, that's probably the reason why. Try sending some UDP packets too and fro the server you're syncing to when on your VPN, post the results.

Because:- 1. Tor is already well established with participating peers 2. Tor is used for everything, so, any one member looking through their transmitted data will probably not know what service is running unless it's plaintext, vs a dedicated service where everyone knows that it's BTSync 3. Tor is tor. 4. Tor is portable 5. Tor is already made & public, no need to wait for any more development or waste time on stuff that could be used to make BTSync more secure over tor 6. I really don't anyone in their right mind would sync over tor seriously, you get ~ 10KB/s and you DC all the bloody time.

1. Run tor 2. Set tor as the proxy for BTSync (If it supports it? I've not tried to use a proxy, not checked) 3. Done If BTSync doesn't support proxies (Not sure), then recommend that as a feature. Much easier (and logical) to implement that vs a tor interface. EDIT:- Tor man page:- http://linux.die.net/man/1/tor

Why not just use tor then? Tor is simply a sock 5 proxy (At it's core, from the client's prospective), run the tor program and then get bittorrent sync to send all packets via the tor program. Seems more logical than recoding the program to do what tor is made to do.

I don't really think HTTP would be the best protocol for this kind of API (Being P2P and all). Also, you can't really mount a folder using HTTP unless you mean you'd be running a executable on the program requesting the API, which, would kind of ruin the point.

I would assume that the log is based on the local time of the computer that's logging, so, check that time?

But without the --config option, I don't believe it saves any data*. *Just a note, I run btsync from the /tmp/ directory, so, it may have been that it saves to the current DIR & I restarted between uses, or, maybe it doesn't save data. I don't know.

Well, I just learnt something. I never really thought about it, but, I would have guessed that the registry was stored somewhere out of the file system, no idea where, but..

Since when is:- A. Registry a file located on an external drive? And, at the risk of sounding stupid:- B. Registry a file what-so-ever?

If they're not port forwarded, they (so my understanding is) both should connect to the relay server and it should act as a proxy between the two clients. If one (or more) is/are port forwarded, then, they should connect directly. They will still use a tracker, but, a bittorrent tracker isn't what you think it is, it purely helps peers find each other, however, once they make the connection, they don't share any more data with the tracker (Well, they do, they continue to say "I have this secret!", but, they don't send the data they're syncing through the tracker).

For a file server with the stock operating system that you want to run? I agree. However, apparently others think that their 1GB of ram is going to give them access to BTSync with TBs upon TBs of data, plex, transmission, sabnzbd and all the other high resource requiring network based applications. Never said I could, I referred to $700. And, as the majority of forums I visit have proven, the majority (Or, at-least the majority of the people who are complaining, which, is bias towards to people who have issues, so, I'll give you that) of people have had issues with said applications due to the lack of power that the devices provide. Each to their own I guess, I'd rather to have more drive space, more power, more flexibility at the cost of ~ $500 extra (Although, amazon claims that they're $650 for a 2 drive set up, although, so you state, apparently they come with drives) & the extras in power, however, if you're purely using it for ~ 6TB or less and only want it to run the nessesities of programs (OS, SAMBA, RAID) then I can see where you're coming from.

Personally, I wouldn't really call this a issue, I'd call this a "I don't wait this file, I'm removing it, stop giving it to me" feature, although, there should be an option to redownload deleted files, just my two cents

Pretty sure they do run a tracker, although, I'm talking about a bit-torrent tracker, as per here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker Basically, all the devices connect and say "I have secret ABC", "I have secret DEF", "I have secret GHI" and the tracker says "Wait, I know someone else who has secret XYZ, here's their IP:- 127.0.0.1" Or just port forward and they can continue to talk directly.

I just don't want to update until it's automatically updated, since, I want to see if the automatic update works.

In fact, last I checked, windows stores $RECYLCE_BIN files for all hard-drives, so, if you move to another computer you can still remove files, and, also save on moving files between drives when deleting them, thus, he could of shared anything from his C:\ drive all the way down to his 128MB SD card. EDIT:- I should probably read ahead in the thread. Anyway, I would seriously add all operating system files to .SyncIgnore, so, .thumbs, $RECYCLE_BIN, your page file (I believe windows uses external drives for page files?), etc...

What? I'm still confused why anyone would buy a nas that holds two hard-drives, has a terrible CPU, about 1GB of ram and costs $700. For pretty much the same cost you can get a pretty decent computer holding >= 10 slots, probably more if you shop around and wait for items to go on sale before buying.

Taking a completely wild and completely unwarranted guess at what he really means, I'm assuming that what he wants is a username & password login which then offers you a list of all your secrets, rather than you having to remember them all. Only reason I speculate that this is what he means is that why on earth would he said "I trust my secrets in your hands" if he was talking about a bittorrent tracker? I assume he means a secret tracker/holder/monitor.

The issue with them being untouchable won't be the thing that's patched, considering that's how BTSync determines which item is going to replace what. If anything is fixed, it'll be that it'll stop touching random files years into the future, although, I've not received this so I can't really state that it is BTSync that's doing that, but, if you've had it then I can't really refute. As for the changelog, if you do see a changelog, mind linking me it?

For what it's worth, the configuration file is covered in the tutorial on the download page, although, I do agree, webUI should be limited to a LAN network if no configuration file has been provided.

Unrelated but:- I was recently running a "du" command on a folder that had ~ 20,000 1MB files on my laptop, and, it was slowed to a pulp, literally unusable (Hell, terminal took ~ a minute to load). This is on a laptop that can run the majority of games on medium settings at 120FPS ('3d' screen). Morel of the story:- Hard-drives are terrible for quick access, however, are extremely cheap for long time storage of anything compared to HDDs, other than maybe large large databases/rainbow tables.

I can't quite tell if you're saying it was the first source ever of illegal entertainment or the go to source for illegal entertainment. Anyway, I believe both of those are wrong, although, I might be wrong on the latter one, however, I'm sure I'm not wrong on the first one. I don't agree on the fact that it should be changed just because of "BitTorrent" part, as, if someone is going to question the phrase "BitTorrent" then they probably aren't going to have the correct set up to use it anyway (Two or more computers, set up correctly to accept UDP packets, files to share (Probably the hardest one), etc...). However, I do agree that it should be changed. I was telling someone about the software earlier and we both agreed it's a pain in the ass to say, "Bee-t-orr-ent", compare it to something sleek like "Dropbox".

I was more talking about everything being in sync, and, server based. Not the thumbnail thing, although, that falls under the server part. As for live TV, series recording and EPG, I use none of. I guess each to their own. I much prefer plex as I have one huge computer (With all my shows) and loads of smaller computers around the house, I also prefer being able to install a plugin on one machine (The server) and it being synced to all of them and the fact that I can use the webUI to watch my videos from anywhere. Oh, and syncing to my device for offline viewing, then, when I get back online, all my online-only plugins (like trakt.t/etc) automatically execute what they would have executed if I were to have watched it online.

or something like:- </dev/random head -c $length | base64 as 'splat' explained?

Someone else pointed this out to me, which, I thought I'd point out to you:- BitSync (By default, I believe you can change it) used UDP, while, SSH tunnels (To the extent of my knowledge) only forward TCP traffic. I rarely use SSH tunnels (other than for forwarding my http & minecraft traffic), so, I may be wrong.

A. Isn't this exactly what plex is built for? B. Isn't there a XBMC plex plugin? Seems like pointless effort to me, I use plex for my HTPCs, computers, ipads and android devices and I couldn't be happier.