UL/DL Ratios in tag

Archived discussion about features (predating the use of Bugzilla as a bug and feature tracker)

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Anticheat
Posts: 3
Joined: 2004-04-03 12:25

UL/DL Ratios in tag

Post by Anticheat » 2004-04-03 12:31

Hello !

Also included tag: UL/DL ratios

I now it is quite simple to cheat it but at least it's a problem for the average user (aprox. 40%) where are also cheaters....
It's also quite simple to implement it.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-04-03 12:54

Tell me, do any of the cheaters you're referring to cheat on their tag?

If so, what's the upshot of doing all of this, other than adding a few more bytes for a hub to broadcast?

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2004-04-03 13:32

This is dumb.

Anticheat
Posts: 3
Joined: 2004-04-03 12:25

Post by Anticheat » 2004-04-03 14:42

GargoyleMT wrote:Tell me, do any of the cheaters you're referring to cheat on their tag?

If so, what's the upshot of doing all of this, other than adding a few more bytes for a hub to broadcast?


Well then let's disable completly the tags... then we will save some bytes and have also no HUB/Slots ratios and others...

I don't say that it's a perfect protection (if it exist !) but at least it's one more payne for cheaters who don't now (yet) to fake their tags...

There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-04-03 14:55

Anticheat wrote:Well then let's disable completly the tags... then we will save some bytes and have also no HUB/Slots ratios and others...

drama++;

Anticheat wrote:I don't say that it's a perfect protection (if it exist !) but at least it's one more payne for cheaters who don't now (yet) to fake their tags...

This is not an argument in favor of including ratios in the tag.


Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.

Discussion stopped, so the thread remains where it is at.

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2004-04-03 15:09

Anticheat wrote:Well then let's disable completly the tags...

Yes, I agree. Tags should be removed.
Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.

I participated in that thread; it's not dumb. Your idea, by quite stark contrast, is very dumb.

Anticheat
Posts: 3
Joined: 2004-04-03 12:25

Post by Anticheat » 2004-04-04 01:53

cologic wrote:
Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.

I participated in that thread; it's not dumb. Your idea, by quite stark contrast, is very dumb.

Cool down :)))
If the idea with the rating server is so bright why is not yet implemented in the latest version of DC++ ?

Xan1977
Forum Moderator
Posts: 627
Joined: 2003-06-05 20:15

Post by Xan1977 » 2004-04-04 02:03

A ratings server is a bad idea. A tag change to include Up/Down ratio is pointless.

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2004-04-04 03:26

Erm, what gave you the impression of excitement or such from which one might cool down?

Anyway.

It hasn't been implemented because people never fully agreed it'd be desireable (it's not impervious to being gamed, it disproportionaly promotes shares dominated by popular files where one might argue DC benefits more with more eclectic ones, and there are the inevitable privacy issues), people never sufficiently fleshed out its details, and because, well, no one to my knowledge has bothered writing the code for it.

IntraDream
Posts: 32
Joined: 2003-12-12 14:28
Location: FL,USA
Contact:

Post by IntraDream » 2004-04-04 04:22

people who fake there tag make me sick.. hmm.

i think adding this would be foolish for resons previusly mentioned. but i think that the suggestion isnt bad.. i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea. the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.

let me restate that in a better way because i dont mean to offend.. the tag idea wasnt bad if its origional purpose was to see how many people where using DC++(no one would fake, why would they) , but if the idea was for upholding server rules that aspect was a bad idea. Not that i dont feel hub owners should be able to pick and choose users as the service they render i feel gives them that option. In a perfect world "Tags" would be awsome but as long as Americans(we are bastards[well most]<maybee just me ;) >) can they will.

Please note the names in this message have not been changed to protect the guilty, none of the above is to imply that i condone or participate in the faking of tags.

Ok yes i do. and yes anyone(thats about 3 people... ok 2) who uses idc has "Fake" tags.. but i would like to mention that they are 'faked' up to par as what the current version of DC++ did at the time(when it was made).. ie if it says 3 hubs the user is on 3 hubs and so on.. this though means little being uploads dont work lol. but thats not the point.. the point is im getting sick of reading this message, and yes its 5 am an im dilutional(if you correct my spelling there will be repercutions)

HOF here we come. booya.

Tim-

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2004-04-04 11:37

IntraDream wrote:i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea.

I agree, but see my comment about the original tag idea.
IntraDream wrote:the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.

You should know better than this, having written a client.

NMDC was closed source.

$Lock and $Pk were failed attempts at client-authentication from a closed-source client.

It's been tried.

It failed.

Miserably.

Can people finally stop pretending this has any chance of working?

It will fail.

IntraDream
Posts: 32
Joined: 2003-12-12 14:28
Location: FL,USA
Contact:

Post by IntraDream » 2004-04-04 18:02

cologic wrote:
IntraDream wrote:i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea.

I agree, but see my comment about the original tag idea.
IntraDream wrote:the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.

You should know better than this, having written a client.

NMDC was closed source.

$Lock and $Pk were failed attempts at client-authentication from a closed-source client.
It's been tried.
It failed.
Miserably.
Can people finally stop pretending this has any chance of working?
It will fail.


even if noone ever broke the lock/key system it would have been faked because before i knew of any better clients i used to make dc connect through a homemade proxy and mess with the un'encrypted' messages.
Yes i think this could work. the latest kazaa(im sick from mentioning it) protocol i beleave is encrypted and you know how many kazaa clients there are.. to my knowledge 1 (i dont count K-Lite because its just hexedit tricks) . am i saying that this is necisarly all you need for a system of non fakers.. nope look at kazza's user ratings that was hacked in a day. my point is i was not refering to some lame lock/key system . and you could write a network that wasnt cracked.. and if you made your clientside app secure enough you could have a network of non-fake users.. anything is posible.

Tim-

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2004-04-05 01:29

IntraDream wrote:even if noone ever broke the lock/key system it would have been faked because before i knew of any better clients i used to make dc connect through a homemade proxy and mess with the un'encrypted' messages.

Yes, DC's being largely unencrypted probably made such faking-proxies easier. It didn't neccessarily help much in decoding the Lock/Pk algorithm though, which was still necessary to produce an independent client.
IntraDream wrote:Yes i think this could work. the latest kazaa(im sick from mentioning it) protocol i beleave is encrypted and you know how many kazaa clients there are.. to my knowledge 1 (i dont count K-Lite because its just hexedit tricks) .

There's also MLdonkey, giFT-FastTrack, and Poisoned.
IntraDream wrote:nope look at kazza's user ratings that was hacked in a day.

Another good example of my point.
IntraDream wrote:my point is i was not refering to some lame lock/key system . and you could write a network that wasnt cracked.. and if you made your clientside app secure enough you could have a network of non-fake users.. anything is posible.

You've not demonstrated this.

Locked