mexter

Well... it's really good to see that they listened. A couple of months ago I would have bought the license without question. I still may, but I'm more heavily invested in other products now (notably Syncthing and Plex). I'm not sure I want to go through switching systems yet again (well, ok. There's no going back from Plex, which btsync had hardly any overlap with anyway. Syncthing... maybe. It's been pretty stable of late. But I do miss some of the ease of use of BTsync and I recall it transferring much faster.) But anyway, thanks for listening. I think this is pretty much everything most of us asked for.

Have you gone into Options - Preferences - Advanced and unchecked the option that says "Always check for updates to this version"? I have that unchecked and haven't been nagged in weeks. This being said, if you do have it unchecked and it still is nagging you, then it might have already downloaded the update to your temp directory. Assuming Windows, you would need to then delete it from your temp directory. But I'm not sure if the program works this way.

Any chance you have selective sync enabled?

Yes and no. The following assumes I'm duplicating Dropbox functionality on a machine that isn't mine for the purposes of getting a file. Assuming 1.4 and below you'd need to have the key for the shared folder. 2.0 you'd need the identity, and if I understand things correctly you have to be pretty quick to disable any shared folders you don't want synced to whatever machine you just installed Sync onto, and enabling selective sync. In either case you have to install a piece of software (BTSync) and have the requisite information. Dropbox has a web interface. So assuming I just want that one file, or a small number of files, I don't need to install anything so long as I have access to a browser. I can also install Dropbox on a Windows machine with limited privileges. I may also be able to do that with Sync, but I haven't tried. In any event, that accounts for accessing small numbers of files. Dropbox wins that one, simply on the basis of having web access. For my other use case, cloud backup of personal photos and videos, BTSync doesn't have the feature. You can claim (and you didn't) that my server is "the cloud" but at the end of the day my resources are limited compared with a large corporation such as Dropbox/Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. If my server goes down or I lose a hard drive, I have nothing to take its place. I've got the most important stuff mirrored to my laptop, but that's hardly the same as having it on a near infinitely backed up machine in a vast server farm.

Sub folders do not count. As for why the frustration, because I'm not willing to alter my entire file structure in order to accommodate a newly added limitation. I could absolutely force it to work using less than ten folders. Symbolic links, for example, might work as subfolders under this system. But that misses the point. They went back on their word and created this limitation. Who is to say that they won't make it 5 folders in version 3? (And them promising not to, which they haven't, means nothing at this point. No credibility exists in this dojo.) Now as for Dropbox, it's not a comparable product. I've never used Sync the way I use Dropbox. For me, Sync is more of a backup tool / convenience. I have personal photos and videos backed up between 2-3 computers, photos and videos from the inlaws backed up onto mine, my phone and my wife's phone's download, photos, and backup directories mirrored with a computer, Windows (My) Documents shared between my laptop and desktop, a share between my wife's laptop and mine, A few others. Dropbox is a cloud solution where I only put things I'm comfortable putting onto the cloud and / or I need accessible on a machine other than one of my own. Same with OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, etc. I would consider using those services to backup my photos and videos, but nothing else.

Yes.

I agree with that. OTOH, on its current trajectory, I'm not sure how much longer this will remain true. -me -

I think you take my words a little further than I had intended. Syncthing isn't that far off of 1.4's functionality. It's close enough that if 1.4 suddenly stopped working that I could probably have it up in a day or two. But I'm hesitant about moving everything from a product that is "good enough" even if I'm not happy with the present situation. This being said, I'm in the process of moving over. The mobile devices are done, and I'm starting to migrate the laptops. I think I chose my words poorly when I said "isn't robust enough". My initial testing has had some glitches, but the reality is I have things working the way that I want, and am loath to change. But there is exactly 0% chance that I will purchase or use 2.0 as is. At this point, I'm not sure I would even if it were free due to the identities concept coupled with the trust issues and the near total lack of dialogue from the BT side. So change is coming.

I agree with you. I'm using a combination of SyncThing and BTSync 1.4 right now because ST simply isn't robust enough. I'm not yet ready to trust it with the bulk of my data. But it's getting there. I don't currently care about sharing links (and actively dislike it). Permissions and selective sync is something I want, but have so far lived without and can comfortably continue to do so.

It doesn't apply to subfolders. You can share a folder that contains a million subfolders, and that will be one share, so far as the program is concerned.

You're absolutely welcome to refute any points you'd like. But unless you're secretly working for Bittorrent Inc., you really have no business implying that people who don't like the current direction are trolls (an ironic bit of trolling, incidentally). Perhaps you didn't notice, but this thread was started by a BTsync staff member. The reason people are angry is that he avoided talking about any of the issues we raised and instead came up with a completely idiotic statement about subscription models and long-term development of the program. Speaking for myself, I'm still using the product (albeit v1.4) and I have every right to not walk away, and to bitch about it to my heart's content. If you don't like that, do what Bittorrent Inc. staff do and avoid answering questions here.

And what do you think the odds of that are? I mean, Amazon has a rather huge array of servers in multiple parts of the country. If one datacenter goes down, another temporarily takes over. Downtime occurs, but it's usually so brief as to be unnoticeable. And you won't be without your files, but rather you'll be without the ability to sync them. The odds of your personal equipment failing is orders of magnitude higher than Amazon going completely down for a significant amount of time. And this is actually worse in my books. I'm not using an NAS, and I don't WANT an identity adding all of my existing shares to a machine that I install BTsync onto. I want only a small subset of my my shared folders, plus whatever new ones for the new computer or device. And more specifically, I don't want an identity AT ALL. I want each folder to stand apart from the others. Identities are not a convenience for me. They're the problem in reverse. Instead of having to manually add shares, I have to manually remove them. And given the number of them that I have on my main computer, that's more work.

You'd be better off asking that in a new topic. Probably won't be noticed here.

Remove license.bin from C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\BitTorrent Sync\License\### So far, the only official word about the inescapable trial was to "not spread conspiracy theories" when accused of forcing it as a way to make people dependent on having more than ten folders. Given how the company has been behaving since 2.0 was released, using the C word strikes me as entirely appropriate. There's a suggestion about moving time forward on your machine a month on the thread. Don't. It can cause complications with file versioning unless you plan on keeping that time on all of your devices forever.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to downgrade the iPhone app or if it's possible at all. On Android it's a bit of a pain since you have to install it and then disable auto updates for that app (or for those of us who are rooted, delink it from the Play store). I do seem to recall reading that the 2.0 iPhone app was backward compatible, but I'm not sure. Perhaps somebody else here has better advice. I've abandoned Sync on my phone and am switching to SyncThing (which has its own headaches, but does pretty much the same thing). I think so long as you don't upgrade to 2.0 folders on your iPhone it may work. Don't quote me on that.

It's not per device, it's per identity. You can use that identity on as many devices as you want. I still personally think that the model is wrong and overpriced, but in your case it's $40 per year. There are instructions in the forum on how to downgrade back to version 1.4 should you prefer to go that route.

I think you misread this. Reclaim doesn't mean you can change the identity. It just mean that you can take the seat away. Your own identity can't be changed. Neither can theirs. The only difference is that they could start again from scratch and create a new identity and then you could grant them one of your seats. So you're user1 and you bought and extra seat. You grant your seat to your employee, s**tfaced2012. But it's 2015 and they're embarrassed about looking anachronistic and want to change their identity. To do that, user1 has to reclaim their seat, and they have to uninstall Sync removing all user preferences, then reinstall Sync with their new identity s**tfaced2015. User1 is the owner of the seats. So if that identity is to be changed you would probably have to contact Sync support. I'm not completely sure on this, but from what I've read it looks like if it's possible at all, you would lose any of your saved share links and have to recreate everything from scratch.

Whereas Sync doesn't offer unlimited anything with regard to storage. You get "unlimited" in the sense that you can connect as many of your own machines and your own hard drives as you want. Part of the problem is that Bittorrent Inc is under the mistaken impression that they are competing with the likes of Dropbox, Onedrive, etc. They aren't. Those are services that constantly hold onto your data / guarantee server uptime, etc. Sync is basically a conduit between two or more endpoints that the end user controls. The software was certainly worth paying for, but they do nothing to warrant a subscription, or even a $40 one time price. (I would have grudgingly paid $40 for a one time purchase before this fiasco. Now I've had too long to see how they do things.) Anyway, tl;dr Sync shouldn't be compared to cloud file hosting services. They're nothing alike.

Unless you're a paid subscriber, in which case I suspect you are married to that identity.

It absolutely does, at least on the free version once the trial expires. I tested quite a bit, and unless an update has changed things, you have to actually remove folders in order to activate ones above the limit. So if you have 30 and you really want the last two you created before the trial expired, you will have to remove 29 folders. Deactivation while leaving them on the list is not an option..

But that would imply that your username is basically a primary key. Why wouldn't they just make your user ID a alphanumeric string like a folder key and allow you to change your display name? Having an unchangable name isn't security, particularly when you can uninstall and reinstall with a different identity. If you wanted to pretend to be someone else, you wouldn't use your main identity anyway. Why not instead allow usernames to be changed, but include some sort of "transaction history" button when somebody wants to share something. You click on that to find out what previous dealings you've had. Something simple like, "You originally linked with UserX on DATE. UserX changed their username to UserY on DATE." If Sync is really using a username for the linking, then there are much bigger problems than folder limits or unskipable trials.

Also, 1.4 had a simple and elegant key sharing system. 2.0 has identities which bring all of your folders to wherever you add it whether you want them there or not. (I haven't used this, so this is based on what I have heard others say. If somebody later says I'm full of sh*t I would probably agree with them.) Oh, and the 10 folder limit of 2.0... it's not just any 10 folders. It's the first 10 in the order in which they were created. You have to remove any folders from the 10 that you don't want so that the next folders in the sequence can become active. So if you have 30 folders, and that last one (#30) was one you wanted? You'll have to remove 20 of the folders in order for it to become active.

Seriously? There has to be a better way. This would mean that, depending on the number of shares, you would have to purchase additional subscriptions. And in any event, requiring a different identity removes any of the supposed convenience of having the identity in the first place. Maybe a mechanism to created a restricted view that only shows some of the folders would be beneficial? Sort of like the Steam family view, where a pin is required before it shows restricted folders? Or sub-identities that could be configured for particular machines? I think the latter would solve OP's problem.

Well, I've learned a few new things today. I have no argument with any of your particulars and am now irritated with myself for not understanding the technology as well as I thought. It'll be interesting to see what happens as I uncheck the relay server options under advanced settings. Since most of my use is local, probably not much. At least I still have the security of lastpass leg to stand on still. Also didn't know about the one post per day. How about they have a version that doesn't communicate with the relay server for a one time flat price? I don't want it anyway.

Amazon's cloud drive is fine for a backup, since it will store the original files. Last time I checked they didn't have a utility so you had to use a somewhat buggy web interface to upload everything. Sharing can only be done one photo at a time. Took me a few tries to get all of my 30k photos up there. If you have Prime, there really isn't a downside if all you want is a cloud backup.