Automatic Coding
-
Posts
218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by Automatic Coding
-
-
There is no proxy ability, which is why I posted what I posted. Also why bother linking this to that to this to that when a developing program with security in mind could implement such a thing? I hope they do add proxy ability though at some point.
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.
-
Right, and how would you recommend making BTSync to go through Tor? Plus BTSync is in alpha stage, subject to major development hence the growing "Wishlist" thread.
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:-
-
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.
-
Ability to connect (mount) a remotely shared folder:
127.0.0.1:8888?action=mount&secret=<secret>&locfolder=<local folder>
Ability to create a new share folder:
127.0.0.1:8888?action=newsync&secret=<secret>&locfolder=<local folder>
Code should be able to create folders on the fly if needed, perhaps a true/flase parametr
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?
-
Forcing a password change on first run would be even better.
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.
-
Later in the post I realized he was using D: and E:, which could be external drives without live Windows installation, although not necessarily.
The registry hives are indeed files.These files are kept in the %windir%\System32\Config directory:
- Software
- System
- SAM
- Security
- Default
- UserDiff
There is also %userprofile%\NTuser.dat.
For more info: http://en.wikipedia....erating_systems
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..
- Software
-
Seriously, though. It's a bad idea. You're now syncing tons of very small, temporary, and often access-locked files that will never complete (Recycle Bin, Registry, many others).
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?
-
Ok then we dont need a tracker then. IF computer A & B are in seperate locatoin (california and washington) without hamachi they should beable to find each other from the relay server??
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).
-
because it was way overkill (you don't need much CPU or RAM to run a file server)
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.
I'd love to hear how you could do it all for under $200 (others have already tried).Never said I could, I referred to $700.
Also, the NAS has busybox already installed so you can SSH in and manually write daemons or whatever, but people already have created Synology packages for most services you can think of so it's very convenient (for me, Crashplan).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
-
you guys were all pretty close to what I meant.
I know that each folder we can set a tracker for each folders shared.
what I was asking ....is Bit Torrent running a tracker within the BitSync applications...........I'm asking if they are running one for us..
thats what I meant.
The option is there for us.......I know that...
right now I use hamachi to link all my computers together and use bitsync to do the syncing. If theres no hamachi then the computers wont see each other.
Thats why I'm asking if BIt Torrent would run a tracker for us to use with bitsync.
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"
I'm still unclear exactly what it is you're asking!? I also run Hamachi to essentially put all my computers on the same "LAN" - this allows BitTorrent Sync to "directly" connect to each. However, even with Hamachi disabled, BitTorrent Sync will still connect to my other devices via the BitTorrent relay server (instead of directly)
Or just port forward and they can continue to talk directly.
-
Wondering when we will see build 125 "officially" released and auto-updated... I don't want to upgrade until I know it isn't just a test build to see if a problem was fixed but hasn't had a lot of scrutiny otherwise... would also feel more comfortable reading changelog before upgrading. Don't want to update one computer ahead of others if it may break their peering due to, e.g., protocol change.
I just don't want to update until it's automatically updated, since, I want to see if the automatic update works.
-
I'm curious why you mentioned Recycle Bin. You didn't Share your entire C:\ drive did you? :-)
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:-
not C drive, but the entire D and E drives, both external.
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...
-
I'm sure the team will make it available soon, since BTSync will be one of the main reasons people buy (Synology) NAS. just like me
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.
-
There is already a tracker for BitTorrent Sync (See "Use Tracker server" option in each shared folder's preferences)
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.
-
Which part of the problem fixed? As I see files from the future act exactly the same (untouchable). Is there a list of changes for 1.0.125 somewhere ?
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.
-
Transfers are definitely slow until indexing completes. I've seen this behavior often, even when indexing from SSD (though it was a bit less affected).
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.
-
The only problem is its name, BitTorrent is often seen as an illegal activity due to torrents download which has become the first source of illegal entertainment...
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.
Don't you think it could be a good idea for the product and its growth to have a name that would be less connoted ?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".
-
No, plex' main selling point is its client driven ability to transcode. The metadata it presents is pretty much the same as every other HTPC offering, XBMC, Media Browser etc. Although it shares some DNA with XBMC they're so apart now as to be separate products.
XBMC supports live TV, series recording, EPG etc, Plex does none of this
XBMC and all its plugins and skins are 100% free, always have been always will be. The Plex clients for tablets and phones cost money, as does the Plexpass subscription which is the only way to use the Plexsync functionality.
The amount of addons for XBMC is mind boggling, Plex has a couple of hundred, it's like comparing the Android app store to the Blackberry app store.
They are completely different animals. My msg was about using BTSync in conjunction with XBMC, I really couldn't give a toss about Plex.
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.
-
Here's what I do to generate a much longer Secret:
I generate a secret, copy it, generate another, paste to add previous to end of new secret, copy it, generate another, repeat until it's really long
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.
-
XBMC Thumbnails
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.
Was not working while connected to my VPS' VPN
in Sync General Discussion
Posted
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.