• Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Torrents
    1. Home
    2. bi4smooth
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 3
    • Topics 53
    • Posts 2104
    • Best 326
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by bi4smooth

    • RE: You shouldnt use NORDVPN for torrenting anymore.

      @kima112 said in You shouldnt use NORDVPN for torrenting anymore.:

      I just found out, that NORDVPN, that has been promoting free data and privacy like crazy over the years has gone over to the dark side.

      They say that they don't have anything against P2P, but they throttle the upload speed to 0 INCASE you do something illegal, Privacy is "a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people." that is something they no longer adhere to.

      I do understand that people use VPN to illegal things, duh..

      If i want to upload something or download in privacy and they spy on what software you use (example) that is no longer privacy. VPN is security for privacy.

      That policy makes you a criminal by default even when you actually upload your own stuff.

      its sad.

      this is not my first language, so im sorry for spelling etc 🙂

      I'm guessing your mileage is different, but I use NordVPN personally, and have no issues uploading (or downloading) content on their P2P servers (you DO need to use their P2P servers, not the standard ones!)...

      There are also issues with their service if you allow too many network connections... I limit my per-torrent connections to 8 (I like powers of 2 in computing!) - but if you think about it, that makes sense: hundreds of users on a single server, only 60K ports to use all-total (a TCP thing, not a config thing)...

      Anyway, I just thought I'd chime in with my personal experience... I don't know why you're having issues... and I can't really offer to help you debug... but I (myself) am not having the issue you're reporting... maybe call their customer service?

      posted in Non-GT.ru Technical Stuff
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Ratio of not so popular torrents

      @maximopoder said in Ratio of not so popular torrents:

      Good afternoon,

      I have downloaded a few torrents, however such torrents are not very popular, so even though I leave the PC mostly on all day and with the ability to upload, my ratio doesn't go up.

      How to improve my ratio in this case? I'm afraid to do some other download, and that download isn't searched often either, thus worsening my ratio.

      can you help me?

      BY FAR the easiest way to improve your ratio is to catch a FREELEECH torrent shortly after it has been FREELEECHED, download (it's free already), and then seed - at least for the remainder of the FREELEECH time (it should be shown in the torrent).

      You should have good luck if you catch the FREELEECH when there are FEW seeders (and absolutely IDEALLY, few leechers so far!)...

      The reason this works is that:

      • The FREELEECH torrent is free for you to download - and anyone else, too!
      • FREELEECH torrents are POPULAR! So there will build up a LARGE number of leechers - usually in a short amount of time!
      • If you are one of a FEW SEEDERS and there are hoards of LEECHERS - then it only follows that you will wind up sharing MULTIPLES of the data size as more and more people download the contents.

      Again, tho - they KEYS TO SUCCESS are to:

      • download a FREELEECH torrent while there are FEW seeders (and preferably, few leechers too!)
      • KEEP SEEDING - even past the freeleech time, as some users don't pay attention to the END TIME of the FREELEECH timer, and will still download it -- in the ERRONEOUS belief that if they start downloading it as a FREELEECH, it will stay that way. (It's only free while it's free! and the tracker counts BYTES, not downloads, for ratio!)
      posted in Ratio
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack

      @raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

      @bi4smooth

      Even before FOX, the news was biased.

      Go back and read the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. The Trib was clearly conservative and the Sun was clearly liberal. Fox had nothing to do with this because they were always different.

      But yeah, let's blame Fox since they are the liberal boogeyman.

      You're confusing print newspapers (which have always had an "editorial slant") with the broadcast (television) news.

      In the early days of TELEVISION, the FCC insisted that the new (not news) networks (and, indeed all TV & Radio stations) provide a certain amount of their broadcast time to "public service"... some stations (and both of the original networks: NBC and CBS) did this with "unbiased" news coverage (to the extent that any decision of what to broadcast and what NOT to can be unbiased)...

      Because this programming was a "public service" the earliest newscasts didn't even have commercials in them! Names like Walter Cronkite & Edward R Murrow (CBS), and John Chancellor & John Cameron Swayze (remember the Times commercials later - in the 60's and 70's?) for NBC rose to considerable fame. NBC switched to a 2-anchor scheme (Chet Huntley and David Brinkley)... and the new ABC network (originally, nearly all sports boradcasts) joined in the fray in the 1950's with houehold names like Peter Jennings, Howard K Smith, & Harry Reasoner - as did the other network (few have ever heard of, as it didn't survive): DuMont.

      It didn't take long for advertisers to want a piece of the action, but the networks limited them (originally) to being a "sponsor" (The Camel News Caravan on NBC, for example) - but there were no commercials INSIDE the newscast (which originally were 10 or 15 minutes long, not the 30 common today!).

      These newscasts were modeled after the "newsreels" that were produced and distributed to movie houses in the 30's and 40's - and that used to come before the main show - another thing completely taken over by commercials today!

      Virtually everyone "trusted" those news anchors - and their departments BENT OVER BACKWARDS to remain "neutral" in their news reporting. NBC and CBS routinely battled for "the most trusted man on television" honors (a precursor to more detailed "ratings wars" to come later)... once established, that was a title Cronkite never relinquished - much to the chagrin of the folks at NBC news.

      For what its worth, DuMont also had a news department, but as a network it closed down in 1956.

      Some of the older folks may remember the famous sign-off messages:

      • Swayze would say: "Well, that's the story, folks. Glad we could get together"
      • Cronkite would say: "And that's the way it is, <day of the week>, <calendar date>.

      In any case - BACK THEN the news departments were NOT-FOR-PROFIT and the networks paid their reporters from profits that came from the "entertainment" department of the network...

      Fox was the first network (they came along in 1986, originally as a purely-cable enterprise) to ask the NEWS division to make a profit... and once they were successful, the other networks were quick to follow... and THAT was the demise of the "trustworthiness" of TV news - in its entirety... CNN and all of the other cable news outlets included! (IMHO)

      Honestly, while I think we DESPERATELY NEED a news source that is "in the public interest" (vs. a profit generator), I don't see how we ever get back to that...

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Ohio State Supreme Court sides with mailbox owners

      Just guessing here: someone hurt themselves, or their car, on someone's mailbox - and they sued the mailbox owner?

      Proof that lawyers will sue over ANYTHING!

      The lawyers who brought such a suit should probably be sanctioned...

      No, if you put an IED under your mailbox, that might be something... LOL Just being a Devil's Advocate! 🙂

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: North Dakota man who attacked Republican US Senator's office with axe: ‘I am Antifa’

      Proof positive that the Republicans (Q-Anon & Trumpites) DO NOT have a lock on insane extremism! Dems have them too!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Here we go again: Fox hosts say Omicron Variant is a Democrat plot!

      @geobear40 said in Here we go again: Fox hosts say Omicron Variant is a Democrat plot!:

      @hubrys
      What both liberal and conservative media are not following the science. Omicron is very mild and treatable without inpatient care or death. It we allow it to spread around and people get over it and then have natural immunity Covid19 will be a yearly thing like the flu is. If you are high risk you get the shot if not then it is your personal choice.

      Brandon & Co don't want to follow the science because that mean they loss control of our personal freedoms granted to us by the Constitution.

      Republican won't stand up because they are still afraid of the WOKE mob.

      • The only thing Republicans fear right now is their own Right Wing, and therefore Trump.

      • The BIGGEST fear the Dems have is their own LEFT Wing (the "Progressives") - but it's not their ONLY fear... because they're "in power" they also have a plethora of other "fears" that go with that... Having the reigns of power is a double-edged sword!

      • We don't know much about Omicron yet:
        We don't know its infection rates (Beta's was quite low, while Delta's was much MUCH higher than the original);
        We don't know the "lethality" of it yet;
        And, most importantly, we don't know how well protected we are by the current set of vaccines yet.
        Learning that it exists is a FAR CRY from understanding it! We've really just learned that it exists... Scientists are good and smart, but they're not magic... it'll be Feb (?) before we know the full effects of Omicron!

      • While I generally share your optimism that Omicron will be less than the original: less deadly, less communicative, less of the threat in every way; the fact is we can't make those judgments yet.

      • COVID-19 is a "force of nature" - anyone who blames Trump for the COVID-19 virus is a political opportunist of the WORST kind, and an idiot on top of that!
        The same goes for Biden and this new variant. These are politicians - not Gods! They can only REACT to the virus - the same as they can only REACT to hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like...

      • Blaming Biden for low vaccination rates among Republicans is like blaming the inventor of the seat belt when your loved one is killed in a car crash - while NOT wearing one!
        But, you can't blame Trump for that, either! He has publicly said (multiple times) that he thinks everyone should be vaccinated!
        Sometimes it does make you wonder: between the Q-Anon freaks and Trumpites, which is the dog and which is the tail? LOL

      • With all the nicknames, I no longer really know who @raphjd is talking about... c'est la vie...

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • Here we go again: Fox hosts say Omicron Variant is a Democrat plot!

      Read it here: THEN tell me how WORSENING COVID-19 issues HELPS the Dems next fall?

      I used to say "You can't make this shit up" - but clearly, I was wrong! Fox (and Friends) CAN (and does)!

      Once again, tho - to be clear: the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is conspiring against the Trumpite Conservatives and the Republican party!?!?!?!

      Whatever they're smoking, the effects are clearly lingering!

      So... we don't know yet if the existing vaccines protect against Omicron (they said we were lucky that they worked reasonably well against Delta)... but, let's say the protection level gets down to - say 50%... would THAT be better for the DEMS or the Republicans?

      How about this...

      It'd be BAD for ALL of us!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: For a million dollars would you?…

      @panurgic said in For a million dollars would you?…:

      @hottie124 Yep, maybe with emote work I would have two income :pig
      For a million would you allow cameras to follow every moment of your life 24/7 for the rest of your life?

      This chain has nearly died -- so let me restart it...
      I would certainly let cameras follow me 24/7 for $1M - but I wouldn't change my behavior either... I'm not ashamed to be a habitual porn watcher and "wanker"... people who watched would certainly see an awful lot of "spilled seed" 🙂 But for $1M, I'm happy to share! 🙂

      My real concern for that 24/7 monitoring (aren't we approaching that already?) would be the people around me...

      For $1M, would you: be the "secret lover" to:

      • Donald Trump if you're a Democrat (or otherwise left-of-true-center)?
      • Joe Biden if you're a Republican (or otherwise right-of-true-center)?

      In other words: would you "sell your body" to the opposite political view from your own for $1M? (Assuming you HAD to retain the secret, or lose all your money!)

      posted in Chit Chat
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack

      @raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

      Back on topic.

      Shane Ferro on social media said that we need to blame the fact that we have SUVs for the attack, not the driver.

      Liberal "news" outlets are still calling it an "incident", "crash" and "accident" despite all the evidence showing it was intentional.

      Imagine how hysterical they would be if the races were reversed.

      If you want to have someone to argue that Liberal media is biased, you'll have to find someone else... I've never claimed that Liberal media isn't biased - only that Conservative media is also!

      Virtually ALL media is biased these days - because they went from public service organizations (all-but required by the FCC of old) in the 60's and up even thru the 90's and 2000's... to being required to be "profit centers" for their corporate masters. As "profit centers" they have to draw viewers from other "news" centers - and to do that, they have to sensationalize EVERYTHING!

      Fox was the first to recognize that you could cater to a political viewpoint and quickly gain a "loyal following"... they were the first, also, to realize that news wasn't news anymore, it had become entertainment! As such, the old rules of reporting the truth were discarded... it didn't take long for the other news media to follow.

      It'd be nice to have some path BACK to where "news" was interested in "public service" and "facts" - but I don't see where that would come from - certainly, it cannot come from the Government! IMHO, the only way we get back to "news you can believe" will be when viewers decide truth is more important than supporting their views...

      That's gonna happen the same time children eschew candy for sugar-free granola bars and rice cakes!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack

      @raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

      @bi4smooth said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

      To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.

      What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.

      Facts and word choice matters!

      I'm quoting this for posterity, in case you try to edit your post claiming you never said this.

      Kyle, despite what your liberal "news" outlets want everyone to believe even after the trial, DID NOT kill 3 black men.

      He lawfully killed 2 white men and shot another white man.

      Either you are a blatant liar, or you are just a tool who listens to liberal "news" and repeats the bullshit lies they spew.

      Dude... you've done it again... He did not kill... followed by he did kill -- unless your issue is with 3 vs 2... so he killed 2 and nearly killed the 3rd... again, tho. the point of the trial was NEVER whether he shot at and killed anyone - he did.. the question at trial was: was it legal for him to have done so.

      In Illinois, it was perfectly legal for him to do so (and in the same breath, you want to blame the Chicago (IL) mayor for all the homicides in her city! You kill me (jokingly) with the situational ethics!)

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack

      @raphjd said in Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack:

      ...
      He only killed 2 people, lawfully.

      Re-read your own post... he didn't kill... he only killed...
      Why... you're Humpty Dumpty!

      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
      “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
      - Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, ca. 1871

      YES! He (Rittenhouse) most certainly DID kill those men. But, YES, he was justified in doing so - according to the jury! Thus, it was not murder (nor manslaughter)... in legal terms, it was "justifiable homicide."

      And in our legal system, THEIRS (the jury's, not yours, and not mine) is the decision/opinion that matters!

      That he (Rittenhouse) killed them was never in doubt! There was plenty of evidence of that. The trial was about whether it was justified, not whether it ever happened!

      If you believe in the jury system (and I do), then you have faith that the Rittenhouse jury got it right, and you equally must have faith that the Arbery jury did so as well!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Waukesha Christmas Parade SUV Attack

      To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.

      What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.

      Facts and word choice matters!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: hello

      @kristian1000 said in hello:

      What to do when I am charged on the page for a file that is not downloaded

      The tracker counts bits/bytes transferred, not complete files. If you download 99.99% of a torrent, but fail to get the last few bytes, that doesn't "nullify" the content you DID get... otherwise, all files would be collections with pics in them - and leechers would just mark the pics as unwanted... when you GOT the movie, but not the rest of the torrent, you'd just quit and get a "refund" for the incomplete torrent...

      Nope - doesn't work that way... you get "charged" for every byte transferred - even if the torrent never completes.

      Sorry!

      posted in GayTorrent.ru Discussions
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: NEW RESEEDING PROCEEDURE TUTORIAL!!! (link)

      @ezekiel22 said in NEW RESEEDING PROCEEDURE TUTORIAL!!! (link):

      I tried everything... doesnt work... its so complicated now, is it me or it was easier few months ago ?

      If you think about what using a torrent really is, then re-seeding shouldn't be all THAT complicated.

      Remember, tho: a torrent file is a DESCRIPTOR of content (including a checksum to ensure validity). Whether you have created the .torrent or not, the fact is: if you add a torrent to your client, and the content is ALREADY THERE, you will immediately begin to SEED that torrent.

      Now: already there has to be an exact match! All the folder and file names have to match, and all of the file-part-checksums have to match! But if the contents check out, re-downloading a torrent is a re-seed!

      Mind you: because this is a private tracker, and therefore your ID has to be added to every seed/leech activity (for accountability), you actually re-seed your uploaded torrents!

      • When you upload a new torrent, the tracker builds a NEW .torrent file (not the one you uploaded) that you have to use to re-seed your torrent! Otherwise, it's never seeded to begin with.
      • Because you're downloading a new .torrent file for content you already have, you're techincally re-seeding your upload! 🙂

      If you're still having issues, contact the HELP DESK. Staffers there are usually helpful!

      posted in Rules and Information
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Is FOX even "news" anymore?

      @raphjd said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

      @eobox91103

      Hillary had more Russian collusion than Trump did.

      It was the FBI that repeatedly lied to the FISA court. One FBI agent even illegally altered an official email to further the anti-Trump agenda.

      Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate for President - I voted against her, and would again (gleefully!). That said, she didn't have any ties to Russians - or any other Foreign Governments - in the 2016 election cycle. And neither did her campaign.

      Why? Because they were "old school" politicians who knew and understood the rules-of-engagement.

      Trump and the Trump campaign did not - so when the Russians came a knockin' they didn't report it to the FBI (the way they were supposed to), they jumped at the chance! It was wrong of them, and it nearly got Trump impeached! (That is not what the first impeachment trial was about - the Dems never did get any evidence that Trump himself colluded - or even met with or talked to - actual Russians himself - so there were never any actual charges raised... and the "Special Prosecutor" admitted that he didn't file any charges against Trump - not because he was guilt-free, but because as the sitting President, he was untouchable.

      But why let FACTS get in the way of your argument - you never have before! Hell, you've made them up before! I'm sure you'll make up some more now!

      Even Derek Jeter admitted after he cheated and successfully claimed that a foul ball actually hit him on the hands... the real fault was, after all, the umpires, no? (that's an open question for Sports Fans to argue about for decades to come!)... the point is, mistakes happen... the real question (in my mind) isn't so much whether the amateurish Jared Kushner actually MET with the Russians (he did)... the real questions are:

      • Did he know it was illegal when he did it?
      • When did he learn/discover that it was illegal?
      • Did he do it again after this discovery?
      • How much and when was Trump himself involved.

      Some of that may have been uncovered in the special prosecutor's investigations, but it hasn't been made public.

      But this "our hands are clean" act - after SO MANY have been charged and convicted - is not fooling anyone!

      posted in Politics & Debate
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?

      @mabbo said in Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?:

      @dilemmax I haven't noticed the same but, at a guess: it's Thanksgiving. Perhaps whoever is working to submit DMCA notices has a couple of days off.

      I have mentioned before (though it is far too early to tell if this is the case yet), but these things tend to ebb and flow...

      Not too long ago, Corbin Fisher's parent company was actively pursuing both seeders and leechers of their content - in court! These days, they don't even DMCA their content much... they accept the torrent "losses" as part of the business model, and I suspect OF will come to the same conclusion eventually as well...

      posted in GayTorrent.ru Discussions
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Greetings!

      @kalayaan said in Greetings!:

      @sisowith

      333354,xcitefun-v.png

      Enjoy this site😊

      Ha! Nice graphic! 🙂 I love it!
      Welcome to both @tanducho234 and @sisowith to the Forums... while certainly not as active as the torrent-side of the house, there is much to entertain and titillate here! Enjoy!

      posted in Introductions
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: PREP problem with STD

      @paulflying said in PREP problem with STD:

      PREP problem with STD

      If you are on PREP and do bareback, then STD has chance.

      How do you think of that?

      PrEP is a defense against only 1 STD: HIV. That said, of the FOUR STD's that are not otherwise curable (the other being: HPV, Herpes, and Hep-B), only this one (HIV) is generally ALSO fatal if not detected and treated quickly.

      Let me say at the onset of this reply: whether to take PrEP or NOT to, along with the separate decision whether to wear condoms during sex, or not to do so, is an intensely personal decision. A decision that should be made with the input and consultation of your own personal physician, and based on your own morals, beliefs, and risk acceptance.

      What I write below is my own set of beliefs, and is shared as an example: one man's path... and not as an attempt to persuade or dissuade any one from coming to a different set of conclusions in their own path!

      IMHO: A great deal of DAMAGE to the male sexual psyche was perpetrated in the 1980's and 1990's in the name of promoting "safe sex" - when, truth be told, sex has never - in the history of mankind - been truly SAFE.

      The correct term, and the only one used by medical professionals, is (and always was) safer sex - as in: less risky vs. riskless.

      As a result, a generation of men (and some women can be included as collateral damage) have been "raised" to believe that sex is unnaturally risky and downright dangerous! I can't count the number of younger men I've met who are essentially AFRAID (even TERRIFIED!) to have sex! (with or without condoms!)

      I'm sorry, but if humanity had ALWAYS been this afraid of sex, then - as a species - we'd have died out a long, LONG TIME AGO!

      Do the math: Nearly every one of the 7.7 BILLION people on this planet were put here because some pair of humans had sex - not just any sex, but they fucked! Assuming straight sex produces a pregnancy that goes full term only 1 in 20 times, that's 154 BILLION straight fucks alone in the past 75 years or so... add in the gay sex, and the sex with birth control, and there have likely been about half-a-TRILLION acts of fucking on this planet in the past 75 years! And that doesn't count the non-fucking kinds of sex!

      Again: If sex was THAT dangerous, we (as a species) simply would not exist!

      That doesn't mean we should go back to the 1970's "free love" era when we (especially we gay men) were fucking almost anyone who would let us! That kind of promiscuity really CAN be dangerous! But surely we - as sensible people - can understand that sex is a natural, instinctive act - even if we're gay! There is nothing "wrong or dirty" about it! It's as basically human as eating food and drinking liquids!

      As you can imagine from my writing above, I take PrEP - to prevent HIV infection - because I prefer not to die of HIV (though it is a largely treatable disease today - thankfully!). I have had sex (recently) with an HIV+ person, who was on medication and was undetectable... and we didn't use condoms.

      In my opinion, the safest people to have unprotected (condomless) sex with are the people on meds: HIV- on PrEP and HIV+ on HIV meds and are undetectable. These people are actively working to protect themselves and others from HIV, and because of their medication regimens, they routinely get tested for HIV - as well as other STDs.

      Men who proclaim themselves HIV- but haven't been recently tested - and who are not using condoms - are playing Russian Roulette with their HIV status... they put themselves and others potentially at risk by not using condoms. Further, they play this "risk-game" essentially "trusting" that their partner is telling them (or even knows) the truth about their HIV (much less other STD) status.

      Men who know that they are HIV+, and either are not on HIV medication, or haven't yet achieved "undetectable" status are putting others at real risk by not using condoms. There are some men out there who are perfectly willing to do this, and to LIE to their partners while doing so. I personally think lying about your HIV status is criminal... your mileage may vary.

      As for the other (non-HIV) STD's, I take my chances... tho, I do take some precautions - like not hooking up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who hits me up on Grindr or Tinder - but, when there is a genuine attraction, I have sex... without condoms usually, though I honor and respect the wishes of my partner should they prefer the use of condoms.

      I want to re-iterate: the decision to NOT use condoms is my personal choice, and it is a decision made with the input of my doctor of choice.

      If you'd have made a different decision, I respect that... but I no more want to convince you that my choice is right for you than I want to hear you try to convince me that your decision is right for me.

      FINALLY: Before anyone goes there - this is totally NOT analogous to COVID-19; HIV is an STD, where COVID-19 is a highly communicable, aerosol spread disease. The only similarity is that they're both caused by viruses. That said, the common cold has more in common with COVID-19 than the HIV virus!

      In closing:
      I want to say again that I appreciate the differing beliefs and experiences of others - so long as they are shared, as I have shared here, as an example of what decision you made (and, perhaps why). But in any case, not as an attempt to persuade or dissuade others from making their own, informed decisions and choices.

      posted in Health & Fitness
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Stalled

      @dandylion said in Stalled:

      @bi4smooth said in Stalled:

      @dandylion said in Stalled:

      Hello,

      The tracker issues aside, QBittorrent does not behave with our tracker very well because we do not have "Scrape" enabled. I'm going to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it was explicitly mentioned in a training document about QBittorrent acting strangely because of it.

      Thankfully the fix is easy, if a download is "Stalled", right click it and click "Force Resume". This should resolve the issue 🙂

      Thank you,
      DandyLion

      The qBitTorrent "scrape" issue only comes into play when you complete a download.

      "Scraping" is essentially a re-announce to the tracker that you have the complete torrent and are now a seeder, not a leecher.

      In qBitTorrent, there is a simple fix: set your client to force re-check upon completion. It will seed properly AFTER the re-check.

      I learned something new, Thank you very much, I will update my training materials and pass that information along 🙂

      To be completely clear - the part in qBitTorrent about the scrape isn't all there is to a scrape...

      Read a full description of a scrape here

      But where it comes into play with qBitTorrent is that it "scrapes" at the conclusion of the download - and our tracker doesn't support scrapes - so the qBitTorrent client sits there saying to itself "I'm a seeder" while the GTru tracker says "he's a leecher still"

      When you set the force-recheck, and it completes, the qBitTorrent sends a fill ANNOUNCE to the tracker, which is accepted and voila! You're a seeder!

      posted in GayTorrent.ru Support Discussions
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • RE: Stalled

      @dandylion said in Stalled:

      Hello,

      The tracker issues aside, QBittorrent does not behave with our tracker very well because we do not have "Scrape" enabled. I'm going to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it was explicitly mentioned in a training document about QBittorrent acting strangely because of it.

      Thankfully the fix is easy, if a download is "Stalled", right click it and click "Force Resume". This should resolve the issue 🙂

      Thank you,
      DandyLion

      The qBitTorrent "scrape" issue only comes into play when you complete a download.

      "Scraping" is essentially a re-announce to the tracker that you have the complete torrent and are now a seeder, not a leecher.

      In qBitTorrent, there is a simple fix: set your client to force re-check upon completion. It will seed properly AFTER the re-check.

      posted in GayTorrent.ru Support Discussions
      bi4smooth
      bi4smooth
    • 1
    • 2
    • 37
    • 38
    • 39
    • 40
    • 41
    • 105
    • 106
    • 39 / 106