Jonnan001

I finally upgraded my little AWS Cloud sync server to Resilio Sync because it wasn't properly syncing with the client. However I seem to have an issue setting up a sync system with the new client - abut two out of three times when I try to manually add a folder (e.g. Options > Manual Connections > Add the key > Select a Folder), when it gets to the Select a Folder portion it hangs, (not responding). Once it's done that, Resilio Sync is done talking about it - killing and reopening either windows explorer or Resilio Sync itself doesn't fix what's broken, I have to completely restart Windows, and I can almost never add two folders at a time - the second one will break it again. Reinstalling Resilio Sync also has no effect on this. Obviously I'm not having any such issue with other programs et al. Nor am I having issues on linux. At some point I did manage to convince myself that it seems to be a problem with opening in the 'This PC' Folder, but I honestly don't recall what convinced me of that at the time. Any assistance you might render, Thank you, Jonnan

The steps in the article seem to . . . utterly fail to restore my folders? I really like BTSync, and you have every right to monetize this. But while $40 a year may be worthwhile for the extra features in Pro, I suspect I'm not alone in being willing to put in more than $40 worth of work to *not* upgrade when the 'upgrade' involves losing already functional features. That is an emotional reaction, but my experience with 2.0 has sucked a lot of the joy out of being a fanboy for BTsync. BTSync 1.4 - cuz I'm still 70% of a fanboy?

The more granular security in particular sounds like a useful option, and I've noticed something like the selective sync seems to have already been integrated into the android client. I do think a cloud option, or the ability to 'bridge' into another cloud service might be worthwhile. I tend to be wary of the subscription software model though (although for Enterprise use the advantages often outweight the disadvantages). Jonnan

Okay, some of this is me misunderstanding the interface - getsync's 'Help' Page says 'Client' 'Sync' 'Bundle' and 'Bleep', which I don't feel *terribly* stupid as having interpreted as 'Sync Client' not 'Bittorrent Client'. But that's where I went wrong as far as support goes - I thought I *was* emailing sync support. If I'm an idiot for thinking that's not entirely clear - well, I have it on good authority I'm *not* the biggest idiot out there, clarification might be worthwhile. That said - the getsync page links to the general Bittorrent EULA, not the Sync EULA. I'm glad the EULA is found in the install, but once installed I'm finding no link to it in the interface, the getsync main page doesn't link to that location, and if the help files have a link to that URL, neither EULA nor License brings it up. It's only important because darn it I need to be able to tell my boss where it's at, but I think it would be worthwhile having it on the getsync page, rather than the general bittorrent EULA.

Thanks - that definitely has the clause I was looking for. I do think getsync.com needs updated - I find only the one link to an EULA at the bottom of the page and it links to http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula which in turn has the clause "or other software offered by or on behalf of BitTorrent, Inc. (the "Software")". The customer support I emailed was linked from getsync.com as well. Perchance, could you show where you found the URL http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula-sync, or is that a legacy URL?

I can't find a straight answer on this. I would like to use BT Sync at work for what is light but nonetheless 'Commercial' use. Per http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/eula it is licensed for non-commercial use only - but that eula is basically a coverplate. BitTorrent Customer Support's reply is simply - "Thank you for reporting this issue to us. (...) Currently Customer Support is only available to subscribers of Plus and Ad-Free. We suggest visiting the BitTorrent Forums at http://forums.bittorrent.com." The contact at the end of the EULA legal@bittorrent.com has not given me a acknowledgment, never mind a reply. For all the response I've gotten it may be a dead mailbox. Repeated topics in the forum hem and haw about it, but based only on the EULA if I sync folders for work I'm in violation of the license, and I'm not sure what position that puts my employer in. So - what's going on here. If this is available for public use, I would appreciate having the license amended to reflect that. If it's not, I think you should make that clear up front. But right now everything seems to scream 'Use this as you will' except for the one (arguably) binding document. Thanks - Jonnan

Thanks for the update/Clarification.

I'm using an Amazon AWS server for the same results - you get about 30 Gig of storage that way.

Not as such (Nor should there be - I think BTSync should stay with doing one thing, really well). That said if you want to do something like that I would Recommend ImageMagick - Program a batch or bash file to watch the folder and covert according to your needs.

The problem I'm seeing (If I've got this reverse engineered in my head right) isn't files that don't sync, it's that if you have two (or more) files that are exact duplicates (same files and given the discrepency between BTSync and FSLint, I *THINK* it has to have the same timestamp or something else that FSlint doesn't consider important.), it *syncs* both files, but only counts them once. The immediate problem is that this mean BTSync actually syncs 97,236 files, but the interface claims you have only synced 89,291 - it *LOOKS* like about 8,000 files got lost somewhere. A more esoteric problem would be the potential for hash collisions - two files that have the same 4MB sequences of hash signatures but aren't actually identical - does BTsync notice or is one file overwitten in favor of the other for recipients? But although I know Hash collisions *can* be engineered, and can think of ways to abuse that, I don't know enough about it in practice to do more than note it as something someone smarter than me should be aware of.

Running a large sync of an archive of files to make them available to some friends online, partly because I wanted to see how BTSync actually works for a large fileset. Getting differing account of the size of the files synced. My Originating machine (Ubuntu) tells me that there are 97,251 items, totalling 863.6 MB in the folder. BTSyncs interface, despite later removing and readding the folder to kick off syncs again, is quite determined that I am syncing 820.86 MB in 89291 files. My Amazon cloud server I'm syncing this too says it has received the same number of files. Removing the originating folder from BTSync and creating a receiving RO folder, BTsync says *IT* has received 820.86 MB in 89291 files - but when I check *it* it from the OS interface, it say it has 97,236 items, totalling 863.3 MB. (Edit: the 15 missing files are 14 'Thumbs.db' files and a 'desktop.ini' file, all covered by .SyncIgnore. So, I have at this point every reason to believe that every file is, in reality, being synced, except for the discrepency in the interface. So That's good.) My initial theory was that BTSync was counting, not files, but file hashes - which would indicate that duplicate files were synced internally as 'same file different names' (and I can certainly see that as a feature not a bug), and the use of fslint in my original folder does in fact indicate the folder has "34,781,696 bytes wasted in 26993 files (in 16990 groups)" . . . which would support this theory if it actually indicated a difference of 7,060 files, but as *I* count it that would imply there should be a 10,003 file discrepency. So at this point I really don't know *what* is going on, except the sync count returned in the interface definitely does *not* match the number of files synced, and the *way* it doesn't match doesn't seem consistent, despite all three interfaces agreeing inside BTsyc regarding how many files are synced. Edit: Intuitively I think this seems like it *has* to be internally counting by filehashes, despite not matching fslint's count of duplicates. If so it may be worthwhile it to adjust the interface to reflect this - something of the order "89,291 Unique hashes synced 97,236 named files."

I confess, with the blog advertising examples of it being used in an enterprise environment, it hadn't actually crossed my mind to look at the EULA like I should. I'd like to use it to distribute simple autohotkey scripts that we need to keep consistent across various PC's (Helpdesk Templates mostly). But if this isn't licensed for commercial use, someone might want to mention that to your blogmeister - it's certainly being advertised as such -- last time I checked, Angie's List was not a charity --> http://blog.bittorrent.com/2014/03/06/sync-hacks-how-angies-list-reduced-their-web-deployment-time-to-seconds/

I'd like to see a way to genrate a non-random secret, in the same fashion as 'Passwordmaker' - if there's no reason not to, my preference would be to have passwordmaker (Which I believe is open-source) integrated for creating Full or read-only secrets. Context. Randomly generated secrets are great of course, but you have to actually share them or store them - to sync with a computer at work I have to generate the secret at home and take it with me to work, then enter it there. Password Maker is designed for creating arbitrarily complex, but non-random passwords for websites. But, if you know the rules, the result is the same everytime. So, creating a password for my new bittorrent.com account I (don't exactly - <G>) use the following rules (There is an online version at http://passwordmaker.org/passwordmaker.html if you wish to test the way it works.) Master Password "PGPMbh5UjGwG2bzY" (From Random.org, just now) URL: bittorrent.com Length: 16 Characters: A-Za-z0-9 Hash Algorithm: SHA-256 Results: CWohK8HRcMSPkLvL With those inputs, I will always get that output - but change the URL to yahoo.com my password the result is CWohK8HRcMSPkLvL, my capitalone.com credit card account would have the password Z127yVGfdcHiyQb5 - Since I have one safe Master Password, if Evernotes passwords are compromised and not properly stored, it doesn't put any other accounts at risk. Well, applying the same principle to btsync, when I want to generate a *non* random secret Master Password "PGPMbh5UjGwG2bzY" Foldername: Graduation Pics Length: 40 Characters: A-Za-z0-9 Hash Algorithm: SHA-256 Results: PuaLVcA2sPPYWfINm3g845ch0b50SZKlvf8FDzjU but my LOLcats folder? Secret == ZNuvnoW6RnbpHvJhOdp88wUVwgHOb74clAKEMrRt But since the secret is *not* random, I don't have to store it anywhere or send it anywhere - all *I* need to know is my master password, settings, and folder names. I can share an individual secret, or I can share the settings and be able to share any folders setup with those settings just by sharing the folder name. Now, obviously integrating this into btsync is a luxury, not a necessity - I've done this personally just using password maker and my long since memorized personal settings. It also needs to be evaluated for security - I'm not really concerned about my masterpassword getting figured out from evernote, but deliberately sharing my secret for Graduation Pics, LOLCats, and Calibre Library across the Internet may mean some algortihms just aren't safe even with a strong master password. That said, as far as having a nuanced way to share secrets goes, this or some improved variation thereof seems like a very useful system to use. Jonnan

I'm iffy on this. I think a BitTorrent 'pseudo DNS' is inevitable, simply because it's easy - the first thing I did was this was share my calibre library of free ebooks (Gutenberg+Baen) among my family using a pseudo-random key. But - even with the large namespace, how long is it before the same human personalities that gave us Spam and some of the more disgusting trolls out there go hunting for shared folder just looking for *any* folder to put something nawsty into, or deliberately overwrite files - nevermind one as simple as 'lolcat-pics'. As a practical matter, I can't imagine it will be that long before someone creates a version with that functionality, now that the idea is there, but nonetheless the idea in going to need to be thought through carefully.

I don't know enough about how BTsync works to have an educated opinion yet, but . . . Off the top of my head I can see it working *very* well in conjuction with something like TiddlyWiki (Example TiddlyWiki Here --> http://nethack.tiddlyspot.com/ ). I'd really like to know exactly how this works. I've always liked Bittorrent just for it's elegance as a protocol, and played with trying to use a 'shared cache' in a firefox add-on (but just wasn't smart enough to make it work), but yeah, I think this is fascinating. Jonnan