TL;DR: if someone gets access to my device ID, can they begin to get access to my files? Or is there some 2factor part to it, as in I need to verify any new client?

>>53358458
Syncthing is just a transfer protocol, if you want disk or file encryption you need to set that up separately.

I use btsync for files and backups. All of /sdcard/ gets backed to my computer. Setting up the Android version the way I want kinda sucks because they've aggressively dumbed it down. Then I have another folder synced with work. Still haven't started backing up shit up to the file server I have with my friends, just been too lazy to set up the sym links.

>>53358486
I meant encrypted while it's transferring, e.g. no one doing deep packet inspection will see any plaintext of anything. Their website says it does this.

>>53358480
Their website says "Only nodes you have explicitly allowed can connect to your cluster" -- I can assume that means if I add a client by device ID, I would still need to log onto my other computer and authorize the new device? I just don't want to be running it for a long time, have someone brute-force keys on the network, and end up stealing all my files.

>>53358633
btsync would be cool if it wasn't closed-source and run by such an awful company.

You do have to confirm new clients I think. So seems safe enough.

>>53358642
>btsync would be cool if it wasn't closed-source and run by such an awful company.
true, but you cant beat the key-sharing system for ease of setting up.

trying to make a normie configure syncthing is just not possible, so i use btsync.

both work well.

>>53359449
Syncthing is getting more developed for normies though I think, the whole relay system (making it so neither client needs to forward any ports) is a huge boost to that.

But nothing will fully kill the problem, why would a normie want to download a safe file transfer program when they can just install Dropbox?

>>53359539
relay (ie firewall holepunching) is one part, the other is ease of configuring. that last part must clearly be improved.

omething like btsyncs keys for per share sharing, and perhaps peer-white/blacklists for those who know what they're doing.

>>53359569
Yeah, and shame the Syncthing Android app is so unintuitive... if I make and share a folder on my desktop, my phone doesn't get any notification about if I should add the new folder or not. So I have to manually add the folder with the same name and THEN it goes.

Isn't a problem if you have half a brain, but this is just one of the many reasons why normies will never get onto the train. I am enjoying it so far, but it does indeed need a lot of polishing.

>>53359569
You can use http://docs.syncthing.net/users/foldermaster.html , but then you still have to accept each new user. Guess it's obvious that Syncthing was never really intended for mass-sharing, simply Dropbox with more security and without "da cloud".

>>53359681
until shares are independent from each other, the UI of syncthing isnt done. Im reluctantly using btsync, because I use it with friends and family too and two dync deamons are a bit much.

>>53359720
What do you mean by shares? Am I missing some feature? As far as I can tell, using "folder master mode" on a shared folder should do the same thing as btsync, just that you need to approve each (new)user device on the master.

>>53359741
I mean having a single key I can share, which represents one dir and one dir only.

whitelist/blacklist of peers should be completely seperate and optional imho

>>53359756
Ah yeah, you'd need to give them your master device ID and then add them manually to the folder. Well it is open-source, just gotta hope someone adds in features, eh.