View Full Version : A Firewall clue/answer...hope this adds value. BITCOMET!

2006-05-15, 02:03 AM

I was one of the first to post in the technobabble forum about firewalling issues. Thanks to TTD, especially U2Lynne the "newbie monitor" for the installation of whatever it is that generates the "firewalled" designation below your username and for answering some of my questions. This has been an interesting issue for me, as I am not a port-forwarding nOOb.

The "firewalled" message struck me off guard as I had just installed a new hard drive and I recently switched BT Clients from official bittorrent (which sucks because data such as total peers and seeds are hard to come by) to BitComet. The addition of the "firewalled" icon to TTD came in these same days...

I am sure that the ports are open on my router and I've known how to do so for quite some time...who cares? But, I came across some info describing BitComet as the worst BT client out there...let me see if I can find the post...

Read this copy and pasted post and give me your opinion of BitComet as a client.

***Since switching from BitComet to Azureus, the "firewalled" designation no longer appears when I come to TTD and when I view myself in the peers list, my port is not red. My router settings have not changed. The conclusion, I guess, is that if you're using BitComet, stop.***

-----Post from another board about BITCOMET------------------------------

the reason why is because of its countless "cheating like" characteristics, for example:
#it hamers the tracker, and pays no attention to the tracker when it tells the client how long to wait before re-announce.
#When it gets snubed by another peer (basically meaning the peer refuses to give the BC client any upload because it has not been given any download from the BC client, the BC client then disconnects up to 10+ times per second to that client in an attempt to get unsnubed.
#It has no (working) upload slot limit, so it makes the upload bandwith so streached out that each peer only gets a few 100 bytes per second or less.
#The new encrypt header feature in BC 0.60 gave it a very unfair advantage and would basically prefer itself over uploading to other tpyes of clients. (afaik, uTorrent is working on a similar feature, but will be making it public information, so that all other clients can implement it if their authours wish to; this is the only real way for this to be effective)
#If you request too many pieces from it (something around 100? or so), it drops ALL your requests.
#It also abuses super-seeding by disconnecting and reconnecting to get a slot, and basically monopolize the super-seeder's bandwidth.
#It has an abusive multi-tracker implementation (announces to all trackers in all tier always).
#It also does stupid things when making torrents (such as not use UTF-8 as the encoding for chinese, japanese, and korean users that make torrents)

The truth of the matter is, BitComet is faster, because it makes ALL other clients slow by the reasons i listed and more; the whole BitTorrent community would be a lot better off if everyone banned BitComet.

And as a final note, the BitComet developers have known about this issue for months now, and still have done nothing, considering that BC 0.61 seems to crash on just about all pcs, this is just another reason to add to the list of why BitComet will most likely not be unbanned here

Thanks for the lesson. Hope this helps somebody out.

Good tunes.

2006-05-15, 04:12 AM
#It also abuses super-seeding by disconnecting and reconnecting to get a slot, and basically monopolize the super-seeder's bandwidth.

that's my main problem with it. it's quite frustrating on larger swarms to see some of the behavior it exhibits. I use azureus with the Stuffer plugin, so I can block connections to BitComet|Spirit|Lord clients when seeding. they're all based on the same code and all have serious flaws with them.

2006-05-15, 09:50 AM
Wow, great information to have. Thanks for posting about this.

2006-05-18, 06:40 PM