Wishlist (Archive)


Recommended Posts

I have a lot of items I would like to see, a lot have already been mentioned. But two come to mind. One, if BTSync could work without having the user account logged in would be a nice feature. That way you could sync and leave the unattended computer some what from prying eyes. Two, and this one should be easy, allow sorting of the columns on each tab. So you could sort the Devices tab by either Device, Folder, or Status (ascending or descending).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the awesome tool! What I'd like to get is an option to limit connections to/from the predefined hosts. If I disable all options and have a predefined host, the host will be used to detect other peers.

As one of my clients is on a notebook which is often connected via GPRS/3G, I'd like to only connect to a predefined hub but not waste bandwidth and transfer volume to upload changes to more than this one predefined hosts.

This feature would allow to build a hub architecture where a central server is used to collect and distribute changes, while some of the clients could also synchronize among each others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my wish: the ability to download files from peers without syncing.

This would allow scenarios where you setup syncing between 2 or 3 PCs with large excess storage capacities and then access individual files on an as-needed basis from remote devices or systems without having to sync the entire contents of the shared file store.

For example, you might be syncing 2TB of videos, music tracks and photos across 3 PCs owned by different members of your extended family. Periodically you might want to download one specific picture or video to your phone or laptop but you wouldn't want to have to sync the entire contents of the share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just discovered bittorrent sync yesterday and I'm so thankful to the people that developed this. I have never been comfortable uploading my content to corporate owned clouds and be at the mercy of their policies and be at risk of getting hacked. This tool is exactly what I needed to backup and share my files. I have been promoting this tool to everybody I know and I'm sure this will become the standard.

Now, my very wild dream is that you would take this technology one (gigantic) step further and develop a complete social networking solution, which doesn't have to be "browser based". I believe it is feasible (after all, a social network is just a glorified way of sharing text, photos and videos...), and for the encrypted chat, you could just use what has already been developed (open source) by the "cryptocat" folks (it's an add-on to firefox and chrome).

This would be definitely be the facebook/google+ killer and millions of NSA-spied-on people would be forever thankful for this. This is just a hope, I truly wish it'll become true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to request the ability to sync .SyncIgnore files across all participating clients.

My use-case is that I use BitTorrent Sync to share source code with others that I am developing with. All of the generated files are constantly being shared as they are modified by the IDE we use. Being able to centrally control the .SyncIgnore file to exclude certain files and directories would allow us to easily avoid the situation where we are constantly backing up each others generated files. As it is, we have to each do it individually, and keep things in sync between our .SyncIgnore (ironic, huh?) to make things work is a difficult task.

Please let me know if more details are needed.

Edited by molemoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'd love if I could mount a folder synced with BtSync as a local folder on my system while the program is actually only writing the block by block changes to the synced folder on my backup computer. I could then move data onto the BtDrive and clear up large amount of space on my workstation and none of my programs would know the difference. Sort of like how programs like deep freeze intercept the write calls by the OS. For all intensive purposes your OS would see the Synced folder as if it was a local actual folder but it would actually be empty and showing the contents of a remote folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there.

Currently I'm syncing EncFS encrypted stuff. The main reason is to be able to have out source sync destionations, such as a cheap VPS or a NAS located at one of my friends home.

This means: Having verbose synchronization notification popups isn't very usefull, because all file names are something like 24 random characters.

So here's my suggestion: Allow to adjust level of verbosity for the "show notification for complete downloads" feature.

Would be nice if I could adjust this per sync share, which would allow to have both at the same time: EncFS syncs and unencrypted syncs. I'm thinking about those levels:

  • High: Shows "File $fileName synchronization completed." for each file.
  • Low: Shows "Finished synchronization of $numberOfDocuments" as soon as all currently connected device are in sync.
  • Disable: Does not show any popups.

Maybe the notification policy could be changed to some even more flexible.

  • Show "Start synchronizaton of $numberOfDocuments" as checkbox
  • Show "Finished synchronizuation of $numberOfDocuments" as checkbox
  • Show "Start synchronization of $fileName" as checkbox.
  • Show "File $fileName synchronization completed" as checkbox

Kind regards,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want (in order):

1) Android version ASAP !! :-)

2) advanced preferences (udp\tcp, priority, ...) on WebGUI

3) "single user" secret: a secret kay that could be valid only from one device

4) multipoint download of the same file if it is present on more shared folders (but may be is already so)

5) some private space shared as SymForm (sharing of FREE space... not only files)

nothing more seems already perfect ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want: (1) versioning of contested files, (2) nested shares.

Would be nice to have some indication of how far away the developers are from killing "surprise delete" bugs. I can't deal with the idea that whole folders still seem to be deleted inexplicably. But, this is clearly the app of choice for me - waiting impatiently!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1. Posibility use folders info (& filenames) encription could be good for syncronize info w/o use it on destination (like secure backup). Situation: use few approved destinations which have a lot free HDD space;

2. Maybe info compression (w/ additional options) at destination could be good too;

3. Source folder owner approvement for relationship & info deletion from destination folder (if permissions r/w);

4. Posibility put in each folder info changelog (or any similar solution);

5. Collect statistic who and when success in sync;

6. Posibility put description & comment at owner source;

7. Source owner can kill relationship w/ choosed destination and delete synced info;

8. Posibility localy lock w/ password BTSync configuration on destination.

p.s. ATM enough B)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use the filesystem change notification API available on major OSes. This allows watching a local folder for changes rather than re-crawling. Changes are detected instantly, and there is no constant performance penalty.

I don't know if a single cross-platform library exists for this, but the interface is pretty simple on each platform. Seek info on the FSEvents API on Mac, FindFirstChangeNotification on Windows, and inotify on Linux.

Dropbox uses this approach. Even with 1.5 million files, Dropbox remains idle when no changes have been made. If it were crawling these folders every ten minutes, it would be unusable on a laptop or a desktop with a spinning disk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wish:

It would be nice to have a bit more control when setting up a sync. Now we can:

1.- Merge files from both locations (which is default secret behaviour now)

2.- Add origin files to destination folder and keep those in sync + keep previously existing files in destination folder just there (read only secret behaviour)

I would like to have also these options for first time behaviour:

3.- Read only + delete content in destination if doesn't exist in origin (perfect mirror). It has happened to me that in device B I have an old backup of a folder in device A with some discrepancies, some non deleted files and some changed ones. Read only mode was not what I wanted because I ended up with some unwanted old data inbetween synced files. I had to completely delete destination folder and start a fresh sync. In fact this only affects the first time when you setup the sync. Once synced, it works just like read only mode.

Maybe a #4.- Replace all content in destination with content from origin. This would just wipe everything out in destination without making any comparison. The difference with previous one would be that it doesn't waste time checking for coincident files. Just delete and sync.

I know I could just delete and setup a read only sync but maybe this could save some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: This Message

Can I request that unlike the 1.0.* to 1.1.* transition the generation of the "info hash" depends on the encryption algorithm in use and the protocol version. ...

eg: SHA2("BTSync" + ProtocolVersion.tostring + Secret + EncryptionAlgorithm.tostring + EncryptionFlags + ...)

Then to use this when you expose the options to use different encryption and MAC algorithms that the OpenSSL library provides as "really advanced" options. :)

PS: Please include the "none" option for this algorithms where appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small improvement I'd really like to see would be when adding a share via the Web-UI, allow to edit the sharing preferences before the share is created. At the moment, a new share is created with default settings (like tracker enabled, search LAN). If I want to use only known-hosts, I still broadcast to the tracker at least once during the creation of the share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Network Profiles per Synced Folder

I attached a scenario where network profiles per synced folder could be helpful. I would like to restrict when and to which networks nodes sync and how much bandwidth is consumed. I guess part of this scenario can be realised with the current features available (search LAN only and predefined hosts). Network detection and corresponding network profiles would be helpful to enable differing behaviour per network or to differentiate client and server nodes by their sync behaviour.

As far as I can see, besides the obvious advantage of this feature it would also be unique.

Other authors have already requested similar features as listed below.

MonoTouch, 28 Feb 2013: detection of the network to exclude networks where p2p traffic is not allowed

erkr, 31 March 2013: need for more control on bandwidth and number of connections

MRACHINI, 09 April 2013: demand for scheduled sync

eseelke, 16 April 2013: likes to see schedule feature

TheQuank, 18. April 2013: likes to have more logic in sync behaviour, which could be based on the evaluation of network profiles

intrigued-user, 24. April 2013: restrict which networks BitTorrent Sync will make use of

photogeek54, 24. April 2013: give preference to transferring files to other computers on a higher speed (usually LAN) network before transferring over a slower WAN

exodeus, 25. April 2013: LAN only mode

mustermanus, 25. April 2013: speed limitation only for external (internet) transfers

kanine, 29. April 2013: schedules per sync folder

jpw0617, 29. April 2013: control feature where you can tell it to use more bandwidth at certain times of day

maks-k, 30. April 2013: scheduled sync and sync on demand

yottabit, 06 May 2013: bandwidth limiter exactly like is present in uTorrent

PacketRacket, 23. Mai 2013: limit bandwidth on a per folder/share basis

X6tus, 31. May 2013: scheduled sync

goli, 05. June 2012: control on sync traffic by restrictions

Open the sources under a free licence as tribute to so many people offering their ideas for free.

Additional wishes:

- Rights management per user to enable revocation of access gratification in teams (e.g., intrigued-user, 24. April 2013)

- Keep last x versions of synced files

- Nested sync folders as already proposed by multiple others


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to use BitTorrent Sync as a replacement for FTP?

Here is an example: If user1 shares their secret to a folder with user2, would it be possible for user2 to be able to view the files/folders that are in user1's secret folder, and then have user2 select the files/folders/sub folders they would like to download or indicate they would like to sync with?

I am thinking that 'download' would be a 1 time activity, while 'sync' would have the ability to download changes to files/folders/sub folders when they occur. I could see this functionality being quite useful.

Thanks. I appreciate your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations and thanks to the team working on this project.

I've been using BitTorrent Sync for a few weeks on a MacBook Air, Linux Desktop (Mint - graphical interface), Raspberry Pi, Windows 7 desktop, and a VPS (Linux with graphical desktop). I am on the Android mailing list and will start testing the Android mobile app when I am given the opportunity. I just upgraded to 1.1.15 and it seems a little quicker than 1.0.134. The metadata being stored in one database instead of lots of meta files is great. I have about 10,000 files being synched (my personal photo album and lots of business documents).

I haven't had a single problem with BT Sync yet in terms of glitches or bugs. It just works. I must be lucky! It's a dream come true.

I have a few suggestions and comments to add to the discussion - some have already been made but I will add my vote to the count.

1) Linux web UI - please change the date format to an international format such as '1 Feb 2013' or '2013-02-01'. The American date convention is ambiguous. I'm not saying the Australian convention is any better - it isn't. Both are ambiguous. Please use a non-ambiguous format.

2) A confirmation dialogue box would be great for the removal button on the Linux web UI. It is too easy to accidentally delete a shared folder and have no way of recovering the secret.

3) Being able to browse the file and directory structure of a remote shared folder would be great so that 'light computers' such as laptops with small disks being used on wifi or cell-data can quickly connect to a large shared folder and browse an index and grab required documents without having to wait for a full synch to occur. This would probably work a bit like browsing a remote server using conventional FTP. You just selectively download whatever you want and leave the rest.

4) A pause and resume button for synching, especially on the web UI.

5) A 'create new folder' function in the Linux web UI. I refer to creating a new directory on the hard-drive so that you can then make a new shared folder out of it. For people who use the web UI to control a remote computer (such as a VPS) this would be very handy.

6) A 'resynch' button. By this I mean that if you are joined to a shared folder with a read-only secret and you accidentally change or remove a file from the shared folder it would be handy to have a 'resynch' button that resynchronises your shared folder back to how it should be (as if you never made any changes / a true and current copy of everyone else's folder). I believe the only option currently is to write down the secret, remove the shared folder (but leave the directory and files on your computer) and then re-establish the shared folder which re-indexes and re-synchs it.

A few final comments / thoughts. For me this software has replaced Dropbox. I have the benefit of having a VPS which acts as an always-on server. Without my server I wouldn't be able to replace Dropbox due to the whole time-shifting benefit of having a 'cloud', but anyone can set up a server for themself using a Raspberry Pi for a very cheap cost. Admittedly this takes some technical proficiency and is definitely not user-friendly for laymen.

I can understand the call by many people for BitTorrent to start offering cloud storage. If this were introduced I would want the client to continue working as it currently does, with no reliance on any central server. The cloud storage could be offered as an optional paid service and people could login to their account with login credentials. From a web page they could submit secrets which allow the 'cloud server' to become a 24/7 node just like any other computer sharing that secret. This service could operate independently of people who choose to remain entirely self-hosted. I wouldn't use this service since I have my own VPS and Raspberry Pi but I think it would be a great solution for the majority of potential customers (the Dropbox crowd) and would provide a nice revenue stream for BitTorrent. BitTorrent could also provide a cloud hosted address book, calendar, email, and other cloud services as part of this account since most other cloud services offer these things and people like having many services being controlled from one account rather than several.

Just my thoughts there. Keep up the good work and I'm looking forward to testing the Android mobile app!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote for a more rsync like behavior of the temp file while syncing, i.e for file file.ext, make the file.ext!sync a copy, and move to the original file (i.e overwriting/replacing it). This would be a huge benefit when syncing webpage content, as there'll be no 404 while a sync of a file is in progress.

Along this line (requested by somebody else) would be the option to have this copy temp-file in a separate folder and not alongside the file, in order not to expose partially synced files.

I do see the purpose of the current behavior for many scenarios though (i.e preventing someone from concurrently modifying the file, saving disk space as you don't end up using twice the space during transfer, etc.), so it would be very nice if this could be configurable on a per-folder basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Events - as mentioned by some posters before me - would be a great feature.

Right now I'm setting up a server to convert some screencasts from wmv to mp4 using ffmpeg when I'm on the go (doing this on a MBA sucks the battery dry before you can close the lid)

I'm missing events for

- file added

- file removed

- file updating

- file updated

The same maybe useful for folders.

The events should just execute a shellscript and hand over the filename. That would make life a lot easier :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.