Currently, all the files I'm trying to download get the response "Tracker Returned Code: 403, Stop!" What does this mean, and why can't I download anything? Is the problem on my end, and if so, can anyone tell me what I need to do? I'm at a bit of a loss.
Currently, all the files I'm trying to download get the response "Tracker Returned Code: 403, Stop!" What does this mean, and why can't I download anything? Is the problem on my end, and if so, can anyone tell me what I need to do? I'm at a bit of a loss.
That's what your Bittorrent client is claiming to you?
What the tracker ACTUALLY says is this:
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
What i understand the problem was, is that bitcomet was giveing advantage in queues and kbytes sent to other bitcomet users, and neglecting other clients.
What's wrong with that? BitComet works better than any other client I've ever tried, which is... most of them. I don't think I'd be changing for any reason, including this.
The problem is that where BitTorrent, as a P2P protocol, is by nature made upon collaboration and sharing, BitComet appears to be made upon selfishness (me first, others then if at all).
I still don't see how that's so. My upload rates are always twice my download rates, and that's with a cap to my upload rate as it is. I have u/d ratios of 10 to 13 on some files.
I really fail to see how this is as you describe.
I don't know the exact specifics either, but it appears to be that in situations when seeds are few, the following happens:
When a new torrent is released, BitComet users are the first ones to receive the complete file.
If BitComet users are banned, other users will receive the files faster.
In a healthy torrent network (still assume 1 seed), an increased number of peers should not affect the speed on which individual peer can download.
But when BitComet users are connected, download speeds for non-BitComet users are lower.
How it happens is purely speculation, but somehow BitComet fails to share effectively. It does share, but likely it does not apply any kind of "rarest first" method in its decision on which pieces to share first.
So because a few people are somehow getting the file a little slower, you're going to lower the number of people who get the file at all?
Yeah, seems like a great idea, there.
Yes, and forcing people to download ones that work less effectively for them and having to run 2 BT clients at the same time is a huge hassle, not to mention an unnecessary one.
So, because you don't feel like using BitComet, you get sore about it and don't want others using it either. Keep abusing your power, here. It's really making you the bigger man.
having to run 2 BT clients at the same time is a huge hassle, not to mention an unnecessary one.
Of course it's completely unnecessary - just get rid of BitComet and re-open the torrents in the 'new' client and they'll resume where they left off.
From the way you're responding, it sounds like you knew about BitComet's behavior and were planning to take advantage of it here...
* Quietust, QMT Productions
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another
I went and did some research. Apparently, "BitComet does not correctly report downloading stats if you close the torrent in mid-download...", however, this only applies to older versions of BitComet.
However, the reason I use BitComet is because it's written in C++ and much less of a memory hog than most other clients. It's worked alot better for me, and I hope you can see through your misconceptions and allow it to be used again.
So, because you don't feel like using BitComet, you get sore about it and don't want others using it either. Keep abusing your power, here. It's really making you the bigger man.
You don't seem to get the point, do you?
If you are getting file a lot faster with bitcomet than with any other client, while other people using other clients are getting the files slower, there logically has to be some reason for that. It's not magic.
It's like with the so-called download accelerators. They advertise that they will download things faster (when you have a fast line) than regular download managers. How many people stop to think how they do that? It's not magic nor something supernatural. There's a technical reason.
Usually the trick is that the program downloads at the expense of other users. In other words, the program basically steals bandwidth from the other users in the same server. Thus it will get more at the expense of others getting less.
Now, bitcomet doesn't work exactly like this, of course, because it is not downloading from one single server. However, I was trying to demonstrate the point that there must be some reason why you feel that it downloads more efficiently. It can't be magic.
Bisqwit said that, according to his own experience, bitcomet, a bit like download accelerators, is getting faster downloads at the expense of other users getting slower downloads. While it may not be clear how exactly it achieves that, it doesn't really matter: It's cheating at the expense of others. That's reason enough to ban it.
If you will not accept getting the files at the same speed as all the other downloaders, that is, getting an equal share with others, then that's too bad. Just don't download the videos then.
BitComet is in fact banned on several trackers for it's behaviour. Just google "bitcomet banned" or a similar phrase and you'll see.
Wikipedia also mentions the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitComet
I would not care at which rate I download at. I would not like to use another BT client because BitComet's interface, memory usage, and method of handling batch torrents works best for me. I have not noticed any differences in downloading when using it, but it seems to chug along at a pretty average pace.
Either alot of people are exploiting the glitch, or it's all a big terrible coincidence. I don't really care. I would just like to be able to download and share.
Besides, even if I were to get another BT client, I'd close it as it as soon as it was finished to free up memory on my computer. BitComet is the only client I haven't had memory issues with.
Besides, even if I were to get another BT client, I'd close it as it as soon as it was finished to free up memory on my computer.
Then you are just a selfish leecher. You would be downloading files at the expense of others, ie. at the expense of the unselfish people out there who actually seed complete files (even though they don't have anything to gain from that). You must realize even yourself that if everyone acted like you, nobody would get anything.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Bit comet is the most user friendly program, it does everything automatically, i can open it with windows automatically, it will open all torrents automatically (like 30) and will start seeding / downloading them automatically. How can i do that with another client?
I'd rather force everyone to use bitcomet than forcing everyone to stop using it.
Joined: 5/28/2004
Posts: 28
Location: St. Albans, WV
I wonder if BitLord operates under the same archetecture as BitComet, as it's getting the same error.
I now have a question: Is there a user-friendly client that is capable of seeding a file until the completed file size has been shared?
BitLord is built on BitComet code. I don't know to which extent, but obviously enough to identify as BitComet.
>Is there a user-friendly client that is capable of seeding a file until the completed file size has been shared?
No idea. But why do you want to do that? From the questions it sort of sounds like you just want to get away with seeding as little as possible.
See, this is why I download my torrents through another computer running Azureus. I don't have to worry about cpu usage since it's dedicated to that anyway.
