Disappointed Cat

I used to work with IPBoard many years ago. Just be glad it's not getting hacked every month. It's anti-spam filter failed here too.

Yes. It will automatically switch to the original secret but the one-time secret will be useless if some's stolen it.

Just remember if it's not signed and verified properly this could make MITM attacks way too easy.

There is no battery saver mode. All it does is stopping the app after dropping below the given percentage. However there is WiFi throttling if the screen is off, managed by the OS itself. So far, I found the best use-case is only running the app when you know you want something synced.

You can set the interval with the 'folder_rescan_interval' option, measured in seconds.

Good choice. Welcome to the club.

It was mentioned some time ago that there will be a business version. I do hope it'll only include enterprise-grade features like custom trackers and they won't make the free version painful as many companies do nowadays. I guess this is why they've kept quiet about open-sourcing and future plans. The BitTorrent team is developing great software so they deserve to be compensated for their hard work, nobody can live on goodwill, but if they start putting in ads or monetizing essential features, I'll be disappointed. I trust they'll make the right decisions. I don't get the secretive attitude however. It's not like we all would just pack our things and abandon the project. In fact, I'd be happy to pre-order a paid version to support faster development and more disclosure. Provided it won't be above the $10 price range. Most importantly unlimited API and open-sourcing the protocol is a must have if BTSync is to be the new major player in file synchronization and P2P utilities. That's my two cents.

I got 25GB for the Great Space Race 7 months ago. It was a university thing. I have no referrals so it could be even more. I also have 100GB on Cubby but they don't have a linux client...

This will be a blooming business once encrypted nodes are implemented. If you can set up your own system then checkout Backupsy. It costs less than half of Incloudibly for the same storage and you'll also have a fully functioning VPS. Sure, it's not 'cloud' but you can just buy 2 at two locations if needed.

On-site servers are not safe enough. You can be robbed, the house can burn down, a meteor could devastate your city... You'd better have multiple peers around the world. +1 for the linux box. It's easier to manage at this scale and it's more secure if you know what you're doing. And don't discard Dropbox so quick. I have 29GB free storage, it's perfect to store AES256 encrypted duplicity backups of everything important. I even wrote a convenient wrapper script to automate it.

There will be an API some time. I'm just chilling, why should I hack around a beta product?

Strange. I believe you've found a bug.

Indeed. Try the linux binary under cygwin just for this or use a linux instance remotely.

It should. Are you sure it's excluded? You'd better exclude the whole BitTorrent Sync directory, there is nothing that could be safely synced in there except for the config file. Unless this is meant to be a backup solution. The pause feature on windows may be broken. I had similar experiences.

No wonder... You're syncing the app directory itself. Other programs may also misbehave if you sync the entire AppData directory.

The devs are over secretive to disclose internals as yet - but there is a way to generate RO keys from RW keys: btsync --get-ro-secret <full-access-secret> The process is different for standard secrets and custom/longer secrets so this is the best way to do it anyway.

If you only want backup and not synchronization you should use a backup/archiving program like unison or duplicity, either directly to a remote location or to a local directory and you can sync that. This also gives you the option to restore symlinks, permissions, ownerships or even ACLs.

Then it's probably an app limitation, for good reason. Seriously, don't do it. New files in the home directories will belong to root, sensitive files could become readable for everyone and I can go on. Of course you could try and mitigate this with ACLs but good luck with that on a system wide scale.

I misunderstood which port you're talking about. This is a big sechole indeed. I disabled authentication on the webui (bound to localhost) thinking I'm safe behind a secure proxy... This puts it in perspective how a lot of people are complaining about the "possibility" of key collision and brute forcing when there's basically a built-in backdoor, at least in my case.

Bind it to a local IP address. Even better if you bind it to localhost and set up a reverse proxy. I recommend this whenever it comes up because it's the most secure way and you get freedom over authentication, SSL ciphers, fail2ban, etc. BTW, the webui backend supports https as well. Indeed it should be default.

Are you running it as root? Anyway, syncing "/" can backfire badly, even if you exclude /proc and whatnot. For instance, your permissions and ownerships will be messed up.

AWS and cloud services in general are very expensive. I'd go with a storage oriented cheap VPS. Of course it's not as reliable or high performance but you already have redundancy... Also with encrypted nodes on the horizon you can just make backup buddies.

I'd like to see modification times in the file manager tabs.

Nope, only create shares for each sub-folder, one by one. If there are too many, keep your one original share but exclude that sub-folder - with .SyncIgnore. Then mount --bind the sub-folder to another location and create a new share with that. It's important that you exclude the re-shared folder from the original to avoid conflicts. I know this is cumbersome but it's only a temporary workaround.

Nested folders aren't supported yet. Having two shares write to the same files would cause conflicts. You need to create seperate shares for each folder at that path level.