is true to some extent but not due to UDP trackers but a feature called UTP which actively monitors all traffic and reduces the reserved bandwidth for uTorrent (similar to reactive ATM networks i think).But if you care about speed at all then you’ll turn that OFF.The speed takes nearly 10 mins to recover.After all who cares about the ISPs-screw them.

i agree with Switeck.But i think this(udp trackers) is much benifecial to the TRACKERS than USERS.Minimises their part in a typical torrent download scenario.Will reduce the resource requirements for a tracker-meaning many new private trackers.Good enough for me!.

So i don’t even bother with a proxy.The train and paper scenario is already in effect.

1.82.15357 > current stable 1.83.x >2.0 Beta
better yet get a 1.6x.This is WRT speed.
Better technology must mean better speed else this is what happens.

Although i will switch back to v2.0 when it becomes stable(somewhere around December ’09).

However, what IF there’s some sort of conspiracy between BitTorrent, the MPAA and uTorrent? After all, let us not forget that uT is a product of BitTorrent, Inc.

One sec while we grab our tin foil hats! LOL!

Total bullshit statement!

Bandwidth spent updating TCP/HTTP trackers is *TRIVAL* compared to amount spent downloading/uploading torrents. So likewise, tracker updates were among the LEAST likely part of BitTorrent to cause “associated web-browsing slowdowns”. There were minor issues with half open connection limit if you had 100′s of torrents and/or multiple trackers on each torrent to update…when you first start uTorrent/BitTorrent your web browser may have trouble finding a spare moment where it’s allowed to make half open connections because the computer’s at max due to updating trackers. But after uTorrent is started, the tracker updates tend to be staggered/offset so many aren’t trying to update at once.

Most “broadband” lines (Cable/ADSL/Satellite/Cellular/WiFi) still have less than 2 megabits/sec upload speed…which are ill-suited to running >10 torrents actively uploading/downloading at once, let alone 100′s! So most of the slowdowns that causes are user self-inflicted rather than a BitTorrent client’s fault. Going to UDP trackers won’t solve it…though it might be a tiny bit easier on trackers.

A vast amount of consumer networking hardware and software (from Linksys routers with default firmware, to USB wireless network “dongles”, to Zone Alarm) is hopelessly bad…and will be even more likely to fail under a UDP packet stream than they were under an equal number of TCP packets. And this will happen as uTorrent v1.8.x and v2.x converts over to uTP and Teredo/IPv6 peer/seed connections!

The availability of HTTPS trackers is *FAR* more important than UDP trackers…at least as far as thwarting various Bittorrent-crippling methods many ISPs use. Even hostile “ISP”s would hardly dare interfere with HTTPS traffic, such as used for online banking and slightly-secure web-based email access. And you’ll need a uTorrent version much newer than 1.7.7 to do that without bugs. (HTTPS servers were implemented a long time ago in uTorrent, but the code was buggy because almost no trackers used HTTPS…so VERY little testing was done.)

Got any proof to back up your claims? Which trackers? Which ISP’s? Which countries? Some details would be nice. If you’re truly proud with nothing to hide, you’ll let the world know. Otherwise you’re just another lying corporate shill that everyone should probably just ignore.

‘¦\\`’¯`’¯¯’\:;;’/¯¯\/¯`’¯`’¯¯’\; ‘:;/¯`’¯`’¯/\¯`’¯`’\'\_ ‘¦\¯¯`’¯;\\ ____ ;¦\\¯`¯’¯’\/¯¯¯¯¯¯\ ‘
‘¦:;\’,_, .:;’\/.:;/`\_/`\\_, .:;’\;’/ -.:;’/.:;’\ – -;’\ ‘¦;\_, ‘,\¯`’ ¯`’\\; ;¦:;\’,_, .:;:;/¦ – :;’\
‘¦ ;’\\¯` .:;’/.:;¦;¦:;’¦¦¯` `;;¦¦\ – -’\ .:;’¦; – ;¦¦:;¦¦¯` .:;’¦’\ ‘,\ ‘;¦ .:;\\¯` .:;\/ – -:;/¦
;\ ;’¦ .:;’/ .:;¦;¦:;’/ .:;’/¦¦:;\ -:;\.:;’/ – -:;’/¦’\;/ .:;’/_;\, ,\ ;’\ .:;’¦; ‘;¦\ -.:;\
.:;\;/_____/.:;/\¦”¦//____;’/;’¦¦.:;\____’\/____;/;¦’;/_____/ ¯¯’¦; ;¦’ .:;\;/_____/¦;¦____;¦
;¦¦¯`’¯`”¦¦:;’/ .:;’¦¦¯`’¯`’`¦¦:;¦;\.:;¦¦¯`’¯`’¯`’¯`’`'¦¦:;¦’;'¦¦¯`’¯`’¦¦ .:;/____;/¦ .:;’¦¦¯`’¯¯`’¦;¦;¦¦¯`’¯`’¦¦
;¦; ;¦;’/ .:;’¦; ;¦;/.:;’\;’¦; ;¦;’/”;¦: ‘;¦ .:;’¦¦¯`’¯`’¦¦;’¦ .:;’¦; ;’¦;¦’¦; .:;¦
.:;¦L,_ .:;¦/ .:;¦L_ .’¦/ ‘ .:;\¦L, _ .:;’¦/ ;’¦L_ .’¦¯¯;¦; ;¦;¦ .:;’¦L_ .:;;¦/”¦L_ .:;¦
¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯ .:;¦L_ .:;’¦/ ¯¯¯ ‘ ¯¯

;¦\\¯`¯’¯’\/¯¯¯¯¯¯\ \¯`¯`’¯`\\ ‘:;/¯`’¯`’¯/\¯`’¯`’\'\_ ‘¦\¯`’¯`’¯;\.:;/¯`’¯`,¯’/¦
;¦:;\’,_, .:;:;/¦ – :;’\;\ – – .:;\ ‘/ -.:;’/.:;’\ – -;’\ ‘¦;’\ – -:;’\/ – .:;/;’¦
;¦ .:;\\¯` .:;\/ – -:;/¦:;’¦; – ;¦ _______ ¦\ – -’\ .:;’¦; – ;¦¦.:;\ -’ ‘ -:;’/.:;¦
;’\ .:;’¦; ‘;¦¯¯¯¯¦;¦;’/’ – -:;/¦//¯`’¯`’¯`’¯`\\¦:;\ -:;\.:;’/ – -:;’/¦;\:;/ – .:;/\ – .:;\;’/’
.:;\;/_____/¦ .:;’¦;¦¦’\_____:;/:;¦______;’/¦¦.:;\____’\/____;/;¦’:;/_____/.:;\___’_'\
.:;’¦¦¯`’¯¯`’¦;¦ .:;’¦/’¦;¦¦¯`’¯`’¯¦¦:;’¦¦¯`’¯`’¯`”¦¦;¦;\.:;¦¦¯`’¯`’¯`’¯`’`'¦¦:;¦’;¦¦¯`’¯`’;'¦ .:;¦¦¯`’¯:;’¦
.:;’¦; ;’¦;¦¯¯¯ ¦;¦; ;¦:;’¦; ‘;¦;¦.:;’\;’¦; ;¦;’/';¦; .:;¦;’/\;’¦; .:;¦
.:;’¦L_ .:;;¦/’ ”\¦L_ .:;¦/;’¦L_ .:;¦/’ .:;\¦L, _ .:;’¦/ ;¦L_ .:;’¦/.:;\¦L_ .:;¦’
¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯ ‘ ¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| __ \ /\ / ____| ____|
| |__) | / \ | | __| |__
| _ / / /\ \| | |_ | __|
| | \ \ / ____ \ |__| | |____
|_| \_\/_/ \_\_____|______|
__ __ ____ _____
| \/ |/ __ \ /\ | __ \
| \ / | | | | / \ | |__) |
| |\/| | | | |/ /\ \ | _ /
| | | | |__| / ____ \| | \ \
|_| |_|\____/_/ \_\_| \_\

| __ \| | / __ \ \ / /
| |__) | | | | | \ V /
| ___/| | | | | |> <
| | | |___| |__| / . \
|_| |______\____/_/ \_\

There is a version 2.0 ALREADY? But we were just starting to understand version 1.8.3!! Holy shit you guys are fast!

But doesn’t putting all traffic over UDP allow the ISP to like block UDP protocol easy? Can you encrypt UDP like you can TCP?

Wont this make traffic more vulnerable?

Can you think of a single example of this ever occurring? I certainly can’t
Open-source doesn’t mean that all patches are accepted without review.

“FOSS is a nice idea, but never been properly implemented in a way that makes it BETTER than the non-FOSS alternative”
Really? What about Apache, MySQL, Linux, GCC, OOo, Blender…
Maybe you don’t like any of those, but you couldn’t contend that they are all absolutely inferior to the proprietary alternative even if you placed zero value on their cost.

“The poster child of FOSS, Firefox, has had more exploits over the same time period, as IE and any one other browser combined.”

citation needed regarding exploits.
If you don’t like bloat, don’t use Firefox, theres plenty of less featured browsers around. That said, Do you seriously consider IE to be the superior alternative. IE is a slow, standards ignoring dog of a web-browser. Web developers need to litter their pages with hacks just to get things to display like they do in EVER OTHER BROWSER available.

http://www.electronista.com/reviews/browser-tests-chrome-firefox-ie-safari.html

What’s not free about it?

you’re talking shit man.

http://www.transmissionbt.com/

There have been more torrent sites opening up then you have taken down.. You close 1 and 10 open up..

Bit Torrent was created to improve upon crappy gnutella and other cruddy protocols etc.. Bit Torrent is by far one of the greatest creations to date for file sharing.. Legal or not.. This is why companies are now beginning to adopt it as a way to distribute their files etc.. It works better & faster..

@26
That someone will take the code and make an “evil” version, and that this could have been prevented by keeping it closed source.

This is exactly why utorrent is closed source.. BT will never allow this to go open source..

You should come to Canada.. Youll be crying that 1.7.7 is so slow.. We need UDP here to bypass the sandvine throttling no matter what ISP you use..

If you want private network, bittorrent is not really the way to go. If you lots of content and fast files then bittorrent is just right.