qBittorrent official forums

Why does qbit ban ip's ?
Is it because of bad data, too many connection attempts or multiple connections from same ip ?
There might be several other reason why an ip is banned, but is there a way to disable the automatic banning of ip's ?

"Why the hell you wanna do that?"
Because i don't know why they're being banned, and as i only use private trackers where bad seeders are rare, and dealt with swiftly, i see no reason to have it enable when i don't know the reasons.

FYI, any respectable client should be doing this. Consider the following scenario:

Someone is seeding something you want (let's say a music torrent) and they change some of the file tags. Regardless of whether they do this consciously or if a program like iTunes does it automatically, the files they now have will not match the hashes in the torrent. If they just keep their torrent client running and don't do a recheck of the data, it will keep sending you data that your client recognizes as "bad" since it doesn't match what it's expecting. Your client will discard this data. Now, if this continues for a while (I don't know what the exact threshold is) your client will ban that peer for sending too much bad data. But what if it didn't do this? Then it would keep requesting more and more until it downloads an absurd amount for no reason. It needs to be able to control situations like this.

I'm no expert on the BT protocol so maybe I'm off on the details here (please correct me if that's the case) but it makes a lot of sense to me. You shouldn't go looking to "correct" things like this just because they seem strange to you. A lot of very smart people have spent countless hours working on the basics of torrenting, so as long as you're using a good client like qBT try not to worry about it too much.

EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, it doesn't matter if we're talking about private trackers or not. Stuff like this happens everywhere, usually unintentionally.

I'm no expert on the BT protocol so maybe I'm off on the details here (please correct me if that's the case)

Nope, you have that "bang to rights"

Thanks for educating me, and your post does make sense.
But then i'm thinking if not there should be an option to use temporary bans instead of permanent bans, maybe as an advanced setting. In your scenario someone is becoming a bad seeder unintentionally, and might be a perfectly good seeder on every other torrent.

Just for the record: libtorrent most likely supports enabling/disabling bans per peer. We don't expose it on the GUI. I could expose it but I for me it is very low priority. If anyone comes up with a patch, I'll merge it.
PS: If you right click on a peer in the peers list you can ban it via the relevant menu item.

As Reith mentioned, having automatic bans might be completely reasonable. But maybe as an advanced setting you can switch from permanent bans to temporary bans for X amount of min (5/10 min). Then the whole ban thing would still be operational, sort of.
You wouldn't have to clear the list every day because you might have banned 90% perfectly good peers who just got banned unintentionally, with no description you can't tell them apart.

Oh and btw. I've not had any issues with wasted data, but yet 50/100 ip's are banned each day and i clear the list every day.

+1 for Fusk's idea.

Banning unintentional bad senders is counterproductive.

Just a thing i've noticed, people don't just get banned for being a bad seeder, at least that's how i interpret this.
Right now i have 1 active download, 0 wasted bytes, but yet in less than 5 min i have 7/8 banned ip's, so they must've been banned for something else which i don't know what is as there's nothing wrong with the data.

Are you sure it's "x.y.z.w was banned" not "x.y.z.w was blocked"? Because "was blocked" is more generic http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libto ... cked-alert
--8<---
After reading some sources I can say that libtorrent bans permanently only these peers that sends invalid pieces ("was banned").
When libtorrent says "was blocked" it means that peer has been blocked because of wrong behavior eg. connection from port below 1024, uses uTP when we want TCP only - this "block" is not permanent for IP (with exception of IP filter).

Interesting.. Thanks for the info gwarser .

EDIT:

Take a look at this:


Also he was using port 80.