Different shares for different hubs

[MySt 0]

Some hubs only allow you to share one type of file. In my experience this is usually anime hubs, but others specialize as well. So a nice feature, that is in some other clients, would be custom filelists for each hub.

eg. Hub#1 you're sharing everything you've got as they're unrestricted

Hub#2 you're only sharing complete albums

Hub#3 you're only sharing anime

[Crise 26]

Some hubs only allow you to share one type of file. In my experience this is usually anime hubs, but others specialize as well. So a nice feature, that is in some other clients, would be custom filelists for each hub.

eg. Hub#1 you're sharing everything you've got as they're unrestricted

Hub#2 you're only sharing complete albums

Hub#3 you're only sharing anime

and in what other client would this be in i don't think it exist in any as it has only recently been made possible to do it correctly,

but if you show me (quite recent) client which has it i'm open into looking into it

[MySt 0]

I was just chatting in a public hub one day and was saying how that'd be a nice feature. Someone said it was in another client, maybe it was Zion++, but I can't remember. This happened probably about three or four months ago.

[CraKteR 0]

No public DC mod has this. Private there is tho.

Compares with nick + hub. so should be pretty reliable, but not always.

[Crise 26]

No public DC mod has this. Private there is tho.

Compares with nick + hub. so should be pretty reliable, but not always.

couldn't it utilize CID somehow? (as i think that CID is created from nick and hub address)

anyway, as i don't know how this actually could be done properly (or as properly as it could be done, with nmdc protcol), i have to drop this request...

[CraKteR 0]

CID is good for that, yes. But this client does it without CID (Since not everyone supports it). So it doesen't give wrong list to the onces with old versions. I think anyways.

I don't think multisharing is good myself.

[Crise 26]

CID is good for that, yes. But this client does it without CID (Since not everyone supports it). So it doesen't give wrong list to the onces with old versions. I think anyways.

I don't think multisharing is good myself.

makes sence. But i wonder pretty much why so many people are against hub independent sharing, as if it's used correctly i see nothing bad in it (since theoretically any feature can be used wrongly) not that i say this would be good for public hubs in my opinion, but it would be very handy for certain private hubs (and by private i mean really private not the "have enough share and you are in" private.) i'm sure some guys browsing these forums are able think few hubs where this would be very good/useful feature.

[CraKteR 0]

The problem is; How can you make it foolproof?

So you can't use it wrongly.

[Crise 26]

The problem is; How can you make it foolproof?

So you can't use it wrongly.

well only way to make it really foolproof would probably need hubside support...

but with no special support from serverside it could only be done by utilizing CID with newer clients (0.69 and newer) and comparing hub adress + nick with older clients.

but i still don't see why this is so big deal with this praticular feature, as there are many other features that can be used wrongly. besides it could be made detectable so if op's would want they could easily kick it, just like it's with limitting having the L:x in tag....

[Yeti 0]

The problem is; How can you make it foolproof?

So you can't use it wrongly.

I don't see what kind of abuse you are thinking of?

[CraKteR 0]

I wasen't saying abuse, Well think about it, if an user shares 100 GB in one hub, then 1 GB in another hub, because he can. That's just wrong, isen't it?

Me thinks so anyways.

[Lee 84]

I wasen't saying abuse, Well think about it, if an user shares 100 GB in one hub, then 1 GB in another hub, because he can. That's just wrong, isen't it?

Me thinks so anyways.

I believe you are looking at this wrong. They want to share 15GB of music on one hub and then 30GB of DVD-R's on another hub (each hub asks for DVD-R only files or music files).

[CraKteR 0]

I'm only looking at it from it's worst possible usage :D

[Big Muscle 1]

I guess that the client with this feature will be banned everywhere ... or hubs will increase their minimum share size

[Crise 26]

I guess that the client with this feature will be banned everywhere ... or hubs will increase their minimum share size

why would it be banned?

I have alredy said that this could be done in a way that it'd:

a) be detectable via tag or description for example...

be disabled when using DC++ emulation (only would apply to mods with emulation cababilities)

and i understand why CraKteR is against this, but i won't understand why you are as you have added many eh.. questionable features to SDC++ before (limiter & segmented downloading) and this features have alredy caused SDC++ to get banned in countless of hubs, though thanks to your efforts with DC emulation SDC is still usable in public hubs...

but as i have alredy said this discussion is pretty much pointless....

[Big Muscle 1]

why would it be banned?

I have alredy said that this could be done in a way that it'd:

a) be detectable via tag or description for example...

be disabled when using DC++ emulation (only would apply to mods with emulation cababilities)

and i understand why CraKteR is against this, but i won't understand why you are as you have added many eh.. questionable features to SDC++ before (limiter & segmented downloading) and this features have alredy caused SDC++ to get banned in countless of hubs, though thanks to your efforts with DC emulation SDC is still usable in public hubs...

but as i have alredy said this discussion is pretty much pointless....

and what would it write in tag/description ? Something like "Hub A: XXX GB, Hub B: YYY GB, Hub C: ZZZ..." I think it's weird :-P People are lazy so they would share only minimum what they can.

[Lee 84]

and what would it write in tag/description ? Something like "Hub A: XXX GB, Hub B: YYY GB, Hub C: ZZZ..." I think it's weird :-P People are lazy so they would share only minimum what they can.

It wouldn't be hard to stop that, basically only allow people to share 20GB + over the min share in order to actually hash the files.. otherwise you'd receive a warning. :D

[CraKteR 0]

That woulden't work good at all.

[Lee 84]

That woulden't work good at all.

A warning in any other client not to abuse this feature would work. It's just because it's the DC network with stupid ops. :D

[Crise 26]

and what would it write in tag/description ? Something like "Hub A: XXX GB, Hub B: YYY GB, Hub C: ZZZ..." I think it's weird :-P People are lazy so they would share only minimum what they can.

i was thinking just something simpler, something like this perhaps:

when using this feature on any hub connected to, add in description prefix [Variable Sharer] to all hubs or something like that, so then op's could easily kick all users using this feature

edit: or then it could read the prosentage of total share in it like this:

let's assume we have user with 100gb share, connected to 3 hubs using different shares on each hub.

In hub A he shares 30gb and in hub B he'd share his full 100gb and in hub C he'd share 50gb

then the client would add following to users description:

In Hub A: [30%]

In Hub B: [100%] (or not at all as he'd share his full share in this hub)

In Hub C: [50%]

[Greg 0]

If people were going to share the min they wouldn't need this to do it. However, I would have thought it would be fairly difficult to do though... having said that, I'd use this feature most likely.

[e-mo 0]

I think there was a special ODC++ version, which has that feature. I remember someone sent it to me, but I cannot recall if that was the source or the client...havent tried it. so if the coders are interested in the source or client (whatever I have) I can of course provide, in case I find it

let me know okie...

e-mo

[3dfx 2]

this is going to be a gem for me

hope it makes it in the release in some point....

[Crise 26]

this is going to be a gem for me

hope it makes it in the release in some point....

currently there is no way that this can be done properly. (read: many users exspecially op's use old versions/mods of DC++ so the user identification fix in latest release of DC++ won't have much impact)

[3dfx 2]

i see

well in my case,i have shared 1,55TB curently and i have a total amount of about 3TB storage...there are many hubs that dont allow more than 1TB or so to be shared.I find that very silly,but i gues its a security mesure for fake share...

or in the other case,my ISP grants me 2 channels with diferent speeds,one for the global internet,and one for my town.My internet speed is 512kbits,as for the local - its 20mbits (both are up/down on one channel)....so as you see,its realy a pain to share such an amount of information on big and public hubs,as really no one can make use of my large files.Thats were the custom hub sharing would come in handy.