If you want to avoid ads and bundled spyware, better to use up-to-date FOSS instead of years-old unsupported versions of uTorrent.
That way you use bandwidth where it's cheap and don't tax your, often battery-bound, local device.
apt-get install rtorrent
rtorrent file.torrent // use ctr + q to quit
ssh user@host cat movie.mkv | mplayer -
This works fine for most usage cases, however you can't go forwards/backwards in my experience, and the stream will fail if you experience network issues - you'll need to download the whole thing from your droplet to your local computer if that happens.
I haven't tested it, but I believe it should work.
1. Create droplet.
2. install rTorrent.
3. Setup any additional services/software you require (i.e. ruTorrent, SSH, etc.).
4. Create snapshot.
I honestly don't see much benefit to this setup other than the fact you can pay for droplets on an hourly basis, and not run the droplet constantly.
I only need the sequential download to proceed a little bit faster than playback. After that, bandwidth should be used to re-assert the (future) health of the torrent, so that segments at the end continue to have enough seeders.
Oh how many times have I tried to download a file where the most complete seeder only has 95% of the download because all the people who had finished dropped off.
Why is it better to use up-to-date FOSS if the older version of uTorrent works fine (better even, in my experience)?
That's only one of several cases where I've recommended a truly good, open source or freeware app for Windows, to have the person become angry with me for sending them on a spyware-laden wild goose chase. From now on I just offer to install the app they need for them, using ninite.com instead of the original source. And it shouldn't have to be that way.
Windows users do not constitute a "community". So if something's zero-financial-transaction-"free", it may still be bundled with exploitware and negative-added-value software.
But it's not for everyone. Most of my clients in the past have had specific commercial software requirements, so I wouldn't even bring up switching platforms. These days it's easier, as everything is moving to software as a service and web apps, and they are already used to running their home office from their iPad or Android tablets. Still, I make sure that my end goal is to offer the best value to my client, not push potentially unfamiliar and net-cost-ineffective solutions based on software license alone.
I've tried Transmission (on Linux) and Deluge, but I prefer the more familiar and simpler interface of qBittorent.
My only gripe with it is that in utorrent I could sort the torrent column by "last finished" or something like that. In qBittorent it's harder to find the last torrents that you downloaded, which can be annoying when you have a few dozen in the list.
Is this still the case? If not, I'd like to give Transmission another try.
The problem is they use reverse psyc, hidden triggers, double negatives, etc.
For example, I can't remember if it was Downloads.com or SourceForge, I recently almost installed Vosteran because the option to deselect the "extra awesomeness" was hidden in "Advanced Install" section and I had clicked on "Normal Install".
I've also seen plenty of "Accept Offer" with "Decline Offer" next to it, greyed out like it was disabled.
Plenty of examples exist of them TECHNICALLY giving you an opt-out - but hiding that opt out in every way imaginable.
For a modern top of the range CPU you can expect maybe ~5MH/s (likely even less)
If 1 million people install utorrent and have their processors mining constantly, you can expect a daily profit of about $14
At this point, I've moved to just using an rtorrent interface on a server.
Still, I prefer standalone installers. Neither Ninite nor Chocolatey offer choice of a location for installing a package, and I prefer to keep large/IO intensive apps installed on my HDD, not on a tiny SSD.
A big thank you to @fearthecowboy over at Microsoft/Outercurve for sticking with OneGet since it was called CoApp.
Plus, I really appreciate the simplicity of having the install / uninstall of programs involve moving folders around. One less thing which could potentially break one day.
I switched to qBittorrent and haven't looked back. It has a similar UI.
How low can they go? Find out when you download v3.4.3 - utorrent with "visual ad enhancement"* brought to you by Superfish!
My brother swears by Tixati:
It's ugly as sin and the interface is a clusterfuck (even without the "haXXorz" green-on-black they use for their screenshots), but aside from that it's lightweight, does the job well and is very, very flexible.
It's a tragedy that this company can't leave the startup hangar yet, mainly based on Bram Cohen's great contribution to Internet protocols.
And we can't forget the uTorrent free version embedded flash control that consumes more than 10% of the CPU in Windows.
Probably now, torrent is a loaded term.
Edit: I was wrong. It is owned by bittoreent. I thought they would not be this scummy.
It's designed to exist independently of any one entity. How the hell were they expecting anyone to pay for the very idea of P2P/DHT file sync?
Sort of like wondering why Google isn't making any money off Hadoop because they wrote that BigTable paper.
Torrented movies are better in pretty much every regard as compared to DVD/BluRay. No ads, no unskippable videos telling you not to pirate the disc you just bought, no 2 minute unskippable disc title intro, etc. Double click the file and it plays the movie.
That's worth paying for. I'd pay for that over Disks in the mail from Amazon if it were possible to do so. If there was a service that let me paste in a .torrent, pay $10, and have them forward it to the studio, life would be good.
Instead, we get iTunes, which somehow manages to make the movie watching process more painful than DVDs.
This is sort of a holy grail of distributed computing because it could allow people to elastically donate their storage similarly to how people donate their CPU cycles to Folding@Home or GPU cycles to BTC mining. The idea is that a lot of your CPU cycles (for example) are wasted because you aren't doing anything on your computer, so you can donate those cycles to Folding@Home. You could do something similar with RAM, but RAM is different: if I decide to run a program and start using my CPU cycles again Folding@Home can just push computation to another machine. But if I decide to reclaim RAM from a distributed computing system to run a program on my machine, then whatever the system was storing in RAM is lost, and if they need that, they a) need to have it duplicated elsewhere, and b) need to know how to retrieve it efficiently from a network of computers any of which may or may not actually have the data. This has proven to be a very hard problem to solve in practice.
From an end user perspective it sucks, but like others have mentioned there are lots of FOSS alternatives, I'd wager Transmission is the most popular.
Why? Because ASICS that's why.
To illustrate. A Macbook Pro bought a few years ago costs $1200 today. Its CPU will get you 1.8 megahash per second. It uses about 250 watt at max CPU.
Meanwhile, an ASIC today costing about $350 will get you over 1 million MH/S and its max watt usage is about 590.
Considering uTorrent isn't specialized mining software, and considering you'll only use about 25% of CPU or so (and that is way too much itself), you're looking at being able to run about 10 million megahash per second on an ASIC for the same cost of running 2 MH/S on a MBP.
Now consider that this ASIC is available to you and me, and that even better ASICS are used by mining farms in China with access to electricity that's 2x - 4x cheaper than what you're paying at home, purchased at factory prices even lower than the $350 I mentioned above.
What does it all mean? It means that if you run a Macbook Pro at today's hashrate for 30 years, 24/7 at 100% of CPU, you will earn $0.07.
So just think about what uTorrent is doing to you. If they took 50% of your CPU for the 8 hours you use your device each day the next year, they'd make 1/25th of a single penny, and that 50% extra CPU would cost you about $20 in electricity, and reduce the lifetime of your computer.
This idea would have been brilliant years ago, before ASICs. Today it's one of the dumbest ideas in the world. It can cost your users tens of dollars, slow down their computers, reduce the lifetime of their hardware and generates virtually no money for you in the process.
Even with 1 million Macbook Pros running this year round, they'd make $700 while generating tens of millions in extra electricity costs.
If they think that 1 million users opening their app every single day and running it for 8 hours to generate $700 is a lasting business model, then I think that's very telling of where uTorrent is headed. I say that even if it didn't cost users 50% of their CPU and a few dollars a month in the process.
-- quick edit: Bitcoin would actually be a very interesting usecase for torrent technology. You could for example attach a bitcoin address to each torrent packet. Then a torrent client could verify if the packet contains valid data (like normal), and automatically send a microreward (e.g. 1/millionth of a penny) back to whoever supplied you that packet. Each user could connect a bitcoin wallet and set a reward for various things he's downloading (e.g. $1 for a 1960s vintage album that can't be found anywhere, or 1 cent for the guy sending him House of Cards).
You could completely monetize seeders on a voluntary pay-what-you-want basis. And uTorrent could offer an option to send 1% of these 'donations' to uTorrent itself automatically. It'd generate a lot more revenue than mining, while costing the user a fraction, and incentivize seeding of a whole range of new content and make torrenting more popular than ever, without having to rely on centralized payment systems that would shut it down immediately.
It's just one of many ideas. I'm all for cryptocurrency and torrents, but this particular product just makes no sense.
uTorrent probably tens of millions of users, not one million. These users also might have decent GPUs (I know I do in my gaming machine which is my only desktop). I'm not disagreeing that this is a questionable business practice, but I think they're going to make a hell of a lot more than $700. Also this normalizes this behavior so if they switch to Litecoin or whatever coin gets hot next, they have all the infrastructure in place to generate new coins.
One of the things thats invisible to computer users is how much power they use. uTorrent is taking advantage of this ignorance. The same way the stupid "search for aliens at home" crap was installed on every university and corporate PC by irresponsible helpdesk staff. There's a larger issue here about power usage. At the very least your computer should warn you if something is eating up all the CPU and rasing your electric bill and contributing to pollution.
All the more reason to promote Deluge for torrenting duties. uTorrent is user hostile garbage.
Immediately my thought wasn't "This is dumb because the hardware sucks at mining" it was "This is to introduce the idea into people's heads." A fraction may go on mining more seriously, or more likely buying and using BTC.
If users get introduced to mining and then go and buy an ASIC that does absolutely nothing, 0, for uTorrent. That's not a business model.
Secondly, that's a hell of a cost to attempt to get mindshare.
Thirdly, there's no way for a reasonable person to be competitive mining these days, so the idea that more people should mine is somewhat laughable.
So let's plug it into today's hashrate calculator: $0.15c, if ran for a year 100% maxed out 24/7. Imagine we lower that to 25% usage, 8 hours a day, and you get roughly 1 cent. Oh and these hashrates are growing exponentially so it's likely much, much lower.
So even if you do this year-round, you'd blow your user's graphics card in a year, generate $320 in extra electricity costs and make 15c (very optimistic estimate), and completely lock up 100% usage of his graphics card 24/7.
And that's for a decent gaming card that you can buy at $200 used today. Don't mind the millions of torrenters who use laptops with on-board shitty cards who just want to pirate Netflix.
In any case, I'm not even sure if it's relevant as I just checked the CPU rates because users in the thread mentioned their CPU went up while idle that hadn't happened before, indicating they're CPU mining as opposed to GPU mining (which is probably easier than configuring for different cards, and allows mining on computers with a decent CPU and a shitty on-board video card for non-gaming.)
So I still think it's the dumbest idea ever.
There was a similar scandal in 2013 where the ESEA client (an e-sports league, and the client is required to play in ESEA matches) "infected" about 14,000 users. They were able to generate a few thousand dollars worth of Bitcoins (worth more now) over only two weeks until the miner was noticed by the community.
They have an advantage because most people who maintain a paid subscription to an e-sports league will have powerful GPUs. But compared to the size of uTorrents userbase, 14,000 gaming PCs is nothing.
In this case though, it looks like EpicScale is only using the CPU. And probably not mining bitcoins, as they never mention them specifically. Their terms list "[...] various purposes, including, but not limited to, cryptocurrency mining, data processing, data analysis and/or scientific research and development."
How is that a problem in my analysis? It's important.
For example say you bought a Macbook Air and came with mining software, used 100% of your CPU and GPU and made your computer unusable. And it generated 1 penny per year in return. And it'd cost you $100 in electricity.
Would you consider it normal to say 'But for Apple it's 1 penny, for free! Your analysis is flawed because all those costs, who cares, Apple isn't paying for them, for them it's a free penny'.
Of course not. It's ridiculous. Screwing over your user is not without consequence, there is a cost involved. A moral one, for one, which if you can't express financially still matters. That is, locking up 25% or 50% of a CPU, reducing the lifetime of their CPU and costing them $20 in electricity per year is screwing over your users.
But secondly there is also an economic cost, just not directly. But indirectly in the long run, doing things like this will lead people to uninstall and avoid your product. In the exaggerated example about Apple above, it's obvious nobody would ever buy that Macbook Air again. A similar thing will happen for uTorrent on a smaller scale, and that's a cost.
And if your little scheme generates peanuts in revenue, then that cost of losing users is likely bigger than your revenue if you'd built a less intrusive scheme.
As for your example, it's from spring 2013. Spring 2013 the hashrate was about 50k, today it's 350 million. So literally, the same infected computers today would earn $1.17 in the same period, or about $28 per year. And the electricity costs would be thousands of dollars. Even if you didn't have to pay for it, a business model where you screw with your user's hardware performance, generate thousands of dollars in costs for them to make $28 is ridiculous.
Even if you scale that up from 14 thousand to 14 million users, not with heavy GPUs but average users using their CPU, it's absolute peanuts. I showed that already.
I'm not making this up. This is exactly my point, as I mentioned, a few years ago this would've been a brilliant idea, hell even spring 2013, today, not so much.
They should drop the cryptocurrency mining part, it just looks shady to do that when there is no real benefit as you showed. And they should make sure that opt-in really is opt-in...
In other words, it's a competition. The average person running a MBP that's a few years old gets 2 MH/S (call em lottery tickets). But the majority of people mining are doing so with ASICs that get 1 or 2 million MH/S at a quarter of the cost of the second hand price of a MBP. That's the reality today.
The comparison between the two isn't my point. It's merely to illustrate WHY running a MBP for 1 year, 24/7 at 100% of CPU nets you a fraction of a single penny. It's because many others mine with specialized equipment.
The basic point is that if you get 2 lottery tickets and there are 100 tickets in total, that's great. If you get 2 lottery tickets and there are litterally trillions of tickets, you won't win, and over the course of a century you will earn less than 1 dollar.
That's not misleading it's literally what is happening. uTorrent's average user will generate a fraction of a penny in bitcoin revenue, while generating 10-20 dollars of extra electricity costs, while using up 50% of its CPU. These facts come from data of today's hashrate, not from analogy. I just wrote down the comparison to explain why the hashrate is so gigantic and why running millions of Macbook Pros through uTorrent can't compete with it and won't generate any real money, despite spending loads of money on electricity costs.
I wonder if that is a new permission Apps should request -- the ability to run high intensity CPU jobs.
Anyhow, this part of uTorrent needs to be removed by the next update of Windows's built-in malware removal tool.
As an aside, my 2 year old laptop gets 20MH/s and a latest-generation desktop CPU gets close to 100MH/s.
Basically uTorrent folks are willing to turn tens of millions of dollars worth of electricity, paid by someone else, into heat just so they can grab a thousand or so of profit.
I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea. How sociopathic a person must be to suggest it originally?
Second of all this is bit different from normal theft in the orders of magnitudes involved. If you steal 1000€ from someone the other person loses 1000€. In this case uTorrent guys are stealing 1000€ and receiving only 0.1€, or robbing 0.1€ and causing 1000€ worth of damage. It's like burning down a department store, destroying all the goods in it and the building, just to rob a single cash register.
Edit: what I meant is that EpicScale in all likelihood mines another cryptocurrency, not bitcoin. Especially that it seems to use CPU which is utterly useless for bitcoin mining (you won't even get $0.01 in a year with the latest i7!)
How is money earned?
Solving math problems for weather prediction, physics simulations, cryptography (including cryptocurrency mining) and more has real world value. We solve these problems on behalf of our trusted partners, and donate proceeds to your favorite charities.
The key words there being including cryptocurrency mining.
Good thing for them that the state of Bittorent clients is rather stale and mediocre, there's no way they would survive more competition with that behaviour.
He then sold µTorrent to Bittorrent inc (and went on to co-create Spotify), and from there on µTorrent has gone downhill as Bittorent inc are going for bundling adware/spyware in order to get a return on their investment.
I remember when it first came out it was the smallest client available, and that's why it gained a huge following - it was unintrusive and required no installation.
uTorrent 1.1.1: 82KB
uTorrent 3.4.2: 1.66MB
I have a feeling that most of that 20x(!) size increase is not due to any new features in the core torrent functionality. In fact, it appears to be the same size as the official BitTorrent Inc. client... I haven't looked carefully at the code, but just from this comparison I'd bet that it's not really uTorrent anymore but the BitTorrent client with a different UI.
I suggest Deluge, or maybe Transmission.
edit: retracting Transmission recommendation because I'm unfamiliar with it's state on Windows. Looks like there are builds, but I've never used them.
It does it's job well enough, ads can be easily disabled via advanced settings, it works in portable mode without even having a chance to install bundled crapware, the UI does not make my eyes bleed.
You can also add hosts file entries to block application ads after dumping network traffic to find the servers, you can edit binaries with a hex editor and debugger to patch out code paths. But should you need to, just to make it usable? What amount of work is needed to make it not-terrible before it can be declared terrible?
Can you develop?
* When you're under active torrents, select a torrent, wait for it to become unactive (ie going from downloading to done), the torrent is unselected (because it's not in view anymore) and the details of the torrent are not available. With µ if you select a torrent it's selected until you select something else no matter what states the torrent goes through and which view you're in.
* When adding a new torrent, the default destination is always the same, in µTorrent it's the last place you downloaded. When I add a torrent, the content always goes into a sub folder depending on type, it's much more likely that the last destination I used is the correct one (say I want to download a couple of music albums)
* The UI when adding a torrent is just cluttered and confusing and I have, a couple of times managed to enter the "add torrent-file"† instead of the "select destination for download" dialogue because it's such a mess
† Why is this even accessible from the prompt I get when I double click on a torrent in my file explorer? When would I ever double click on a torrent file, and then want to select a different torrent file? So unnecessarily messy.
I develop. Did not know Deluge was using Python. I might contribute one day, but doing front-end stuff is not really something I enjoy
I always try to install a new program as a limited user (sadly, most programs that come with an installer require administrative rights).
Recently i moved over to tixati as my preferred torrent client.
"What kind of monster would suck up my CPU cycles, increasing my power bill, and shortening the life of my hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of computing equipment, to make a few cents?!"
This is basically just flash ads without annoying audio coming from a mystery tab. I laud it as innovation. ;)
Also: transmission, yo.
I literally cannot stand companies that write software like this.
CPU and GPU mining will literally cost their users millions of dollars in electricity for the few thousand dollars they would stand to make in bitcoin mining.
The more things change...
But considering that the default installer offers a ton of adware too (although you can opt-out of all of that) might not make it the best counter-example for the purpose of this discussion.
The core is open source though (GPL even), so a savy user could just download the .jar (+ libs + optionally a .exe launcher) and launch it like any other java process without all the installer crap.
But that's not something most people are aware of.
current version, classic UI, no ads: http://i.imgur.com/8nD46ab.png