Wishlist (Archive)

[raveur]

Put me down for:

• selective syncing
• configurable following of symlinks

Edited May 24, 2014 by GreatMarko
Struck-through items are suggestions which now have their own dedicated threads in the Feature Requests forum

[rysliv]

Some sort of magnet url support to add a read-only folder would be lovely.

[aid85]

I have a request. "blind sharing secret".

There are 2 types of Secrets/Hash/Codes. One is full access, one is read only.

Could you add a third one? This third hash would let other people "host" my content from their server, but not let them read it. It would still be encrypted for them, but would be available to the network. It would be an easy way for others to help me share my stuff and have it available with higher redundancy, but still remain private.

Additional/optional features:

 

--When I am sharing someones private/secret data from my place, I'd like to choose a maximum amount of disc space. If the folder is bigger than another person offers, the data tends to distribute itself over the network so that to still be completely available. - scenario: me/person A is sharing my 3rd-type-secret for anonymous/encrypted sharing with person X and Y. X and Y offer 1Gigabyte of data each. My folder is 1.5 Gigabyte. The protocol now has the tendency to distribute the fragments so, that X and Y offer the complete Data when combined. 0.5 Gigabyte is redundant. (for the future: btsync could even find out, which data is used/changed more frequent, and hold that data redundant).

 

--People can choose how much bandwidth (and discspace - see above) they offer for each encrypted folder.

 

--to better know, what's going on, the encrypted shared folders can be given names or describtions in order for the blind sharer/hoster (the host who doesn't know what he/she is hosting) to know what's going on. If the owner wants to share that. otherwise the folder has just an ip or name.

To host only you can share encrypted folder (TrueCrypt) or use SymForm... I think is more usefull a read\write\delete secret (intead of actual read\delete)

read = read only (present)

write = read\write\rename (TO BE DONE !!)

delete = read\write\move\rename\delete = full (present)

[aid85]

 

My wish is a better wishlist... take this as example:   uservoice's http://trendsmap.uservoice.com/forums/29419-general

I think that at the moment even if this is a young project BTSync is almost perfect.

I can suggest: 

 

• auto sync in wifi \ manual sync in 3g: an option on mobile version that can set different behavior on 3g or wifi

   

• symform+btsync: should be great to use BTSync to share freespace (like symform) or to join them ;-)

   

• windows portable version of btsync: in this way you can use it also where there is no way to regular install (without admin power)

   

• show connected devices (not only the number) also in mobile version

 

 

Firs of all we need a suggestion box here !!

Forum style is not good for wishlist dev !!

[Lukas]

To host only you can share encrypted folder (TrueCrypt) or use SymForm... I think is more usefull a read\write\delete secret (intead of actual read\delete)

read = read only (present)

write = read\write\rename (TO BE DONE !!)

delete = read\write\move\rename\delete = full (present)

 

Thanks for your answer, but I think your suggestion isn't what i am looking for. Of course I can encrypt a folder and then share it over bt sync. But then I have to sync the whole folder everytime i change a little thing i guess. Also, I use one service (truecript) within another (btsync). the idea with the 3rd type hash would me like an LAFS (least authority file system) only that this isn't a filesystem. To be more specific, I want to solve the following problem:

 

I have content, that I want to share with 2 or 3 friends. I have different content, that I want to share with (partly) different friends. No one has an always-on-computer/server. Syncing isn't very efficient /fast, since they have to be online. So It would be good, If more of friends-group A could help friends-group B to sync/share the content. But group B has things, that shall be secret to group A. So if the content could be stored and shared from all friends together the network would be much more reliable. Only the B content would have to be encrypted for A. So group B would give group A 3rd-type hashes.

 

I don't know exactly how bt sync works, but i guess it's like splitting the files from a folder in many many blocks, encrypting them and then submit them. There also has to be some communication about which file/blocks have to be overwritten and checksums and all of that. So just leave the encrypted blocks encrypted but make them available for the others. That's (my) idea.

[crash893]

Firs of all we need a suggestion box here !!

Forum style is not good for wishlist dev !!

I created one for this and they took a shit on it because they prefer the wishlist to be threaded. Apparently bit torrent as a larger entity has one they just haven't spun it up yet 

 

I understand as bt sync is still very beta you might not want to flood the system before you actually have the inner working done right

[aid85]

Thanks for your answer, but I think your suggestion isn't what i am looking for. Of course I can encrypt a folder and then share it over bt sync. But then I have to sync the whole folder everytime i change a little thing i guess. Also, I use one service (truecript) within another (btsync). the idea with the 3rd type hash would me like an LAFS (least authority file system) only that this isn't a filesystem. To be more specific, I want to solve the following problem:

 

I have content, that I want to share with 2 or 3 friends. I have different content, that I want to share with (partly) different friends. No one has an always-on-computer/server. Syncing isn't very efficient /fast, since they have to be online. So It would be good, If more of friends-group A could help friends-group B to sync/share the content. But group B has things, that shall be secret to group A. So if the content could be stored and shared from all friends together the network would be much more reliable. Only the B content would have to be encrypted for A. So group B would give group A 3rd-type hashes.

 

I don't know exactly how bt sync works, but i guess it's like splitting the files from a folder in many many blocks, encrypting them and then submit them. There also has to be some communication about which file/blocks have to be overwritten and checksums and all of that. So just leave the encrypted blocks encrypted but make them available for the others. That's (my) idea.

It seems that symform or mega or even retroshare is more suitable for your needs IMHO

[aid85]

I created one for this and they took a shit on it because they prefer the wishlist to be threaded. Apparently bit torrent as a larger entity has one they just haven't spun it up yet 

 

I understand as bt sync is still very beta you might not want to flood the system before you actually have the inner working done right

 

 

 

It seems that the actual forum is flooded !!

A suggestion box may hide suggestion that are taken into the "work in progress" or not voted in a more clear view and reputation system.

Also the "quote" view seems to be ugly here.

[joelishness]

You have a manual download option instead of autosync on your phone...

Okay, thanks!

That option's function was not clear to me. I thought it meant "automatically check for updates instead of manual refresh". I guess you're saying it is actually "automatically download everything".

 

Much obliged.

[mgr]

Really want to be able to bind to particular IPs/interfaces for the application (similar to the way the webUI for linux works, except for all application operations/listening ports).  See http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/23938-binding-to-particular-interfacesips/ for more information.

[sb9876]

BTSync has so far been a great product and aside from one particularly bad experience, has been doing wonders to keep my computers synced.

 

The exception happened about a week ago.  I have several machines that have several folders synced as a backup system.  (I lost years worth of work and my entire music collection earlier this year when my main machine and NAS drives failed within a week of each other so I'm a bit paranoid now.)  

 

Even though everything is synced, I tend to do different workflows on different machines - graphics and video work on one, development on another, etc.  So for each synced directory, the data flow tends to be unidirectional for the most part.

 

I had one machine switched off for about a month while i dealt with some power supply issues with it.  When I powered it back up and wnet to work on something else, it immediately started syncing old files to my development machine, silently overwriting newer versions of the same files.  Since the dev stuff is full of git rollback transactions and it took me a couple hours to notice the problem, trying to untangle which files were overwritten by BTSync, which ones I had resaved on the dev machine since and which .Syncarchive revisions were the ones I wanted was basically impossible.  It would have been a total disaster if I didn't have a 3rd machined powered off at the time which I could fire up with the wireless disabled and use a USB sneakernet to restore the original files on the dev machine. 

 

I can definitely see even more unmanageable tangles occurring in a BtSynced workplace with multiple people accessing shared folders.  

 

TL;DR - there really needs to be a way to designate a particular machine or machines' copy of a folder as a master copy.  Whether it's a one-way data flow or bi-directional with approval of the master share owner, there really needs to be a way to prevent this sort of behavior without some sort of user-approval.

[neck]

Can i get a re-sync button in read-only mode(one way sync) to sync second time?

Thanks

[neck]

Can i get a re-sync button in read-only mode(one way sync) to sync second time?

Thanks

[Necrose99]

Public share hash 

 

Share folder to Friends etc however 

 

 

EXCLDE Files or Folders or other PHI

 

WOW

EQ EQ2 IE MMO's that patch often , just sanitize them to just files that  update 

 

No INI or XML etc. put files or folders on an Exclusion list 

 

IE the guild can sync up on patch Tuesday , by the time you get home some of the games stupidly huge patch has already synced.(or mostly) 

 

Your account login in INI or other Game info character names is sanitized (not shared) but patched exes dll's and game files required files are shared with buddies. 

have . 

 

 

 

I have not to many qualms with a read / write public hash as well , just so long as Peoples PHI files are Stripped out for thier own good. 

[Necrose99]

Public Read-only or Read Write hashes. Minus some trivial Personal files IE Longin data logs etc. 

 

PHI. 

 

R/W hashes from known friends IE Guildies etc. 

 

WOW etc,  MMO for Patch Tue , 

 

With some files IE in files that store character data login passwords etc. 

 

Just the core files of a game that change . IE Everquest many are not too big however with WOW etc. They can be. 

[joe@shopsbee]

Hello we've just started using your product. The ubuntu debian "btsync" version.

 

One of our use cases is to sync client folders with remote developers.

 

We have many "shared folders" (we intend to have up to 1000 per configuration file) and BTSync can "bug out" without an error message if a folder is missing. This is a possibility in production because a race condition exists with adding and deleting shared folders within a single file.

 

This is undesirable - it would be better to provide a warning on the command line and continue loading the remaining of the folders - with an "OK with errors" message instead and listing failed folders.

 

Also, some form of configuration tester command (with a pointer to a test file)  like -t (for test)  -f /var/tmp/test.conf   would be ideal.

 

Another great feature would be "service btsync reload"  - where the original configuration continues executing until the new configuration is validated - If configuration validation fails - the service continues running.

 

I think also ( tho I haven't double checked) - if one configuration file fails - btsync bugs out and doesn't continue loading the remainder - realistically, you want to continue loading other files and just warn on the broken ones.

 

I believe but can't confirm atm that there's also a bug out when there's duplicate keys that needs to be resolved.

 

Another way to avoid the race condition, is obviously for us to use multiple BTSync files - but this isn't possible because each file needs a new port assignment (otherwise the system bugs out). It would be good to allow multiple configuration files to use the same port number, similar to how apache operates.

 

Cheers,

Joe

 

p.s. BTSync is awesome :~)

[gabor]

This topic is a mess. I would vote for better uservoice wishlist.

[gabor]

This topic is a mess. I would vote for better uservoice wishlist.

 

update: sorry, duplicate because of sql query error

[jonnojohnson]

Hoping someone will tell me if this is possible but otherwise it's a wish...

 

My company just discovered my machine was using a torrent client and I got an email telling me to remove any torrent clients. I'm not about to win any arguments with our big corporate IT provider right now so here's what would enable me to keep using BTSync.

 

Is there a way to create an IP mask such that a BTSync client only operates when not in the blacklisted IP range? This would allow me to leave it running all the time but it wouldn't try to communicate when inside my work network (or VPN).

[pauloklaus]

Congratulations, it's a great app!

 

My wish: by default only listen on localhost :-)

 

Good job!

[Balthanon]

Another quick addition that I think would make things more convenient.  I would like to be able to add a sync secret to a folder using the context menu-- i.e. when I right click on a folder, it would display an option like "Sync Folder with BitTorrent Sync" and then allow you to either generate a new key or enter one that already exists.  This would ideally be a configurable item during installation as well so those who don't want the feature need not clutter up their right click menu.

 

Having the option to query for whether a secret already exists for a folder using the context menu (or one higher up from the folder you're looking at) would also be beneficial.

[nils]

Make detailed information on connected devices of a share available in GUI/Web-UI:

- IP and Port

- Read only, Master, One time node

- max up/download recorded speeds

- BTsync version running

- Files left to be synced

[affert]

Be notified/warned when filenames differ only by case in a mixed sync environment (IE some computers are case sensitive and others are not)

[prophetjase]

Can the Linux executable do everything that the web UI can do? If not, that would be my suggestion for the wish list. It would be helpful if adding folders and setting their properties could all be done programmatically via the command line. (Sorry if this has already been suggested!)

[joe@shopsbee]

Lower the 10 second file sync start time for specific file types that we can guarantee are small, such as .html .htm .css .tpl .js .php .txt

 

This will enable developers to push files quicker and use syncapp for remote development work.

 

Dropbox is around 4 seconds. Could we do 1-2 seconds? etc.