lolcat

That is from the documentation. I have waited for close to 24 hours and still haven't gotten an API key. If you don't receive the key within 16 hours, how are you supposed to "start building today"? I feel the documentation should reflect that this is a manual process that can take several days, if that is the way it works.

Also having a fourth key that only allows someone to encrypt files and upload them, but not view the other files. Then you could setup an inbox running on several servers with the encrypted key, and then check the inbox whenever. That probably won't work if it is symetrical encryption tho...

Do you know how to make encrypted read-only secrets? I would be very interessted in having a python script to do that. It opens up so many features, you can setup encrypted inboxes where people can upload files, insecure caches, and so on.

Now all I need is the instruction to generate the new one with an encrypted read-only key and a read-only key. Waiting for the feature or an API key is SOOO boring. I want to setup caches right a away!

Are you paying for several of them? If you are paying for two of them, then it would cost minimally more to just rent an entire server, and deploy it there. Especially if you only need 40GB of storage. I am a bit curious where you are. Bandwith seems to be incredibly cheap, for €12 eur a month I would be able to have 100/100mbps, which should be more than enough to share a file to less than 100 people. I am sure even my 10/10 mbps connection could share a file to 100 people if they seeded a little themselves. The use case is also interessting. Are you trying to share these files to laptops, tablets/phones or desktops that can't be moved? If you want to share it with laptops, it would probably be far better to setup a NAS on your local network, they would then bring the laptops home and seed it (and then they'd provide the bandwith for all the other people). This is the biggest advantadge of the bittorrent protokoll, you don't need the bandwith to reach everyone, you only need the bandwith to reach one or two people. I guess there is a difference if you are in a country with slow internet connections, or in one where people have great speeds. If everyone has good broadband with good uploads then distributing it won't be a problem, if everyone has low download speed and even worse upload speed then it seems like a rather difficult project. If the files you are sharing is not restriced or licensing prevents you from sharing it, then I am sure you could find someone that would be willing to host tiny shares for free (I wouldn't mind hosting a couple 20GB shares on my fileserver), if the files are restricted then sharing it through Bitsync seems like a terrible idea, one student could make the key public, and then the files will be avileble for everyone.

I don't see the point of restricting users to only share with a specific amount of people. You could always limit the bandwith on each share if it becomes a problem. And won't sharing something with 100 users not use too much more bandwith (assuming it is not only leeches)? The ability to only share the encrypted read-only secret is also vital. Sharing my read-only or read-write secret with you would make the service far worse than Dropbox. At least they are a known corporation, with liquidity, if they violate my privacy I could take legal action, taking legal action against a company that has potentially no assets and tons of liabilities seems silly.

If you enabled the ability to use you as an encrypted peer then I would love to try, and happily fill up 250GB with files, and make sure they are downloaded a lot.

Doesn't the new keys start with "D" for full access, "E" for read-only and "F" for encrytped? I would love to know how it is generated.

I was under the impression the default action was only syncing on wireless. And I disagree with the "most people's allowance" part, doesn't pretty much all phone companies provide reasonable unlimited plans? If I pay $16 more a month, I'd have unlimited data (in addition to texts, mms and minutes). I have also found that most of the time I have wifi access, when I'm at home, or at work I always have wfif, then I also have access to it wifi most places I go.

I would assume that is a dangerous path to go down.

Is it an old MAC or a PS3? If not it is pretty safe to assume you don't have PowerPC. If your post the output of cat /proc/cpuinfo I can give you a definite answer.

The ability to append one share to another would be usefull. Lets say I have the following setup: Share [All files goes to my servers] with the sub-shares: Jane, Nick and Juliett and a Picture folder with sub-folders for different events. Then I go to Vegas with Jane and Nick, and have a folder with pictures. If I could append it to Jane and Nicks shares, they would be able to download/upload between eachother. Then I won't have to add it to both the folders.

As far as I understand that is a feature they are trying to implement.

I stumbled upon this piece of software while looking for some good form of backup software, I realize that backup is not its purpose, but for parts of my backup needs this is perfect (I use it to sync my laptop to a fileserver that backups to the cloud). The encrypted backup function seems brilliant, the only problem is my inability to create the secret for encryption since this is only enabled through the API. The ability to share sub-folders with their own secrets is the most important feature, especially when encryption gets enabled. Then I can save a backup of folders that doesn't change much (pictures for instance) and store it encrypted at friends and family. If I could share subfolders they would allready have the files, and would then be able to instantly access whatever folder I want to send them. I would like the option of more intelligent syncing. Lets say I have three fileservers with good redundancy and another one with great bandwith but limited storage. If the client could make sure the fileservers has two copies (instead of three), and that the most popular blocks is on the high bandwith box I would be able to serve more files more efficiently. I could ofcourse manually create a folder of what I think is the most popular part, but that won't be as streamlined and efficient. I would like a much better GUI, and the ability to download only parts of a shared folder. If I am limited to my 60GB SSD and my friend wishes to share 3TB of movies that won't work too well, and I would want to be able to choose what files I need, and preferably their priority. It would be nice to be able to at the client side define how much redundancy a folder needs. My Ubuntu ISOs doesn't have to be replicated as heavily as my personal photos. If you could define roles to the different clients (ie server or client) then it could make sure there were always a copy on two different servers (a computer that has little downtime). Ability to share individual files would also be interessting, if I have allready synced 200GB of movies to my servers and my family, it seems rather tedious to make a new folder, and resync it everywhere just to share one movie. And it would be a terrible waste of badnwith. A way to split a shared folder into pieces could also be usefull, especially with encrypted folders. Lets say I have 100GB availeble on 5 computers, if I could then make a 500GB folder sync one piece to each, I would be able to utilize storage better and share more. Parity would also be brilliant, if I could make it split into 3 pieces, and use two for parity (so that any three can recreate my files). Prioritating different folders would also be a good feature. I am more interested in getting my girlfriends photos, than the latest drunken movie from my friend. I should download those first, and leave the rest for later. Limiting size of syncs would be usefull for swapping backup space, or when one of the recipients have low amounts of storage. Being able to define several sources for files and using all the folders as sources. If I have a file shared with mother, and sister shares it with me, the client should notice and not redownload it. I'd also like to be able to add web seeds for files or folders like you can in µTorrent.

I feel nested shares would be brilliant for when you are using some hosts mainly for bandwith. With BTsync I can make a sync folder where everything goes to my fileservers. That is nice, but when you want to keep sub folders for 20 friends, making rules and adding each to three computers gets rather tedious. If I have a folder structure like this: BTSync -> private, friend1, friend2, friend3, friend4, family Then I'd like everything within BTSync to go from my laptop to fileserver1 and fileserver2. This ensures that anyone downloading their folder, or updating it, will always get as much bandwith as possible. Ofcourse I could manually add each folder to sync, but that would require adding far more folders, and a lot more complexity. Especially now that there hopefully will be ways to use the encrypted secrets. Then having one folder that seeds everything seems like the best option, rather than having several folders to add. If you just have one it is a simple configure and forget setup, if you need to add every single folder to all the devices you need to do much more.

XMPP or IRC with OTR?

I would really like to start using this feature, unfortunatly the only way I have found to obtain the "encryption secret" is from some blog post (seems rather unsafe, as he could be storing it all himself). Each user getting their own API-key seems extremly tedious, then you have the option of making a closed soruce program to do it, but then you would still have the problem with trust. I have applied for the API key, hoping I can make a usable GUI that works on Linux/FreeBSD, and preferably can be used to manage more than one node (it seems rather tedious to add the keys to several nodes that I myself control).