Here's the deal, I am making a bnet bot (called ViPeR BoT) and I was originally going to make it in REALBasic, but due to several issues I have seen with it I will not. I am thinking about possibly redoing all my work in C++ or something else. I would prefer using a cool language that noone would think of using (cobolt, python, etc.) but that's not gonna happen.
I will prolly do all of the coding on my own (or most of it), since I have seen some issues with winsocket, and since my bot will be fully customizeable, it will be better even to define what a scrollbar is. In this way, ever version of the bot will be the same for ever operating system (Windows, Mac, and possibly Linux).
Only problem.. it's gonna take a while to redo all my code and to get used to everything.
This forum is usually used for help requests, discussion of changes, or the like. Not news about some particular client.
-1 to Undeference for using the :'( in vain.
</going to get flamed>
Cobolt?
I won't lmao just in case it's really a language but, uh... I'm giggling in anticipation :)
/me is makign a bot in python
Quote from: Noodlez on May 20, 2003, 06:34 PM
/me is makign a bot in python
makign? wow is this a new way of doing things? :-p
/me is etaing a sandwich
What's the eta on your sandwich, Eibro?
Quote from: Yoni on May 20, 2003, 08:22 PM
What's the eta on your sandwich, Eibro?
-30 minutes, it's now churning in my digestive juices :-*
Noodlez, you just showed your own immaturity by stooping down to his level. I congradulate you!
Quote from: Noodlez on May 20, 2003, 06:34 PM
/me is makign a bot in python
/me has been there done that
On to Scheme!
Umm...does Scheme even have socket support?
I think it's turing complete.
Now I have to admit, that would be pretty damn hilarious to see an actual application written in scheme. ;D
Yeah lol. This is all anyone really does:
(define square
(lambda (x)
(* x x)
)
)
Turing completeness doesn't necessarily indicate socket support. It just means the language can be used to solve any computational problem. For socket support, you need a socket driver/library, and ideally some kind of network (without a network, sockets are only useful for local IPC, and there are usually better solutions than sockets for local-only IPC).
Consider Brainfuck. Due to the nature of the language, it is impossible to have sockets (or any libraries for that matter) without introducing changes to the language itself. It is, however, turing complete.
-1 to yoni. Dont give me -1.
Yes. Cobalt really is a language (the reason I mentioned it is because I figured you would never have heard of it).
Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?
Quote from: Undeference on May 30, 2003, 01:57 PM
Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?
I don't see why they should release something publically after they've spent the time researching it. Them offering the service of a Battle.net logon server is more than anyone could honestly ask for, and it is their decision and right to allow or disallow users to use the service. If you have some false opinion of what BNLS does which was extracted from ignorance that you don't agree with, then don't use it and continue using old-logon system functions (which have been publically distributed) for old-logon system clients.
it would be unwise to flame the people most likely to help you.
Quote from: Undeference on May 30, 2003, 01:57 PM
Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?
Not sure if that was aimed at me (bnetdocs) or not?
The reason is that BnetDocs is a *documentation* website. It is not a one-stop-shop for code. I doubt any code will ever be posted there, with the exception of the BNLS checksum function.
If someone with a thorough enough understanding of SHA-1 or CheckRevision would like to contribute a detailed explanation of those procedures - prose, not code, but perhaps with pseudocode - I would be more than happy to add them to the site. I do fear, however, that they would do more harm than good, since the average BnetDocs user probably doesn't have the coding experience necessary to make use of such information.
I believe c0ol posted pseudo of CheckRevision somewhere.
You are prolly right, arta. I don't want to be kicked off of bnetdocs :P simply bc I was abusing you, but, since part of my bot will be open source, I will let anyone who can actually understand the code know how to encrypt the cd keys. The reason I would prefer that someone be willing to tell me how to do it is it will save me many months or research to be able to take someone's word on it.
[What would happen if I asked
[email protected]?]
Quote from: Undeference on June 02, 2003, 01:41 PM
You are prolly right, arta. I don't want to be kicked off of bnetdocs :P simply bc I was abusing you, but, since part of my bot will be open source, I will let anyone who can actually understand the code know how to encrypt the cd keys. The reason I would prefer that someone be willing to tell me how to do it is it will save me many months or research to be able to take someone's word on it.
[What would happen if I asked [email protected]?]
Your mail would probably be returned as undeliverable, because battle.net doesn't have any mail accounts.
Anyways, I think most of the Blizzard support team doesn't know (or care) how the CD-key data is sent - they're not people who wrote it. Furthermore, I doubt that the Battle.net programmers would possibly risk their jobs by disclosing company secrets to a complete stranger
Quote from: smoke on May 23, 2003, 10:58 PM
Now I have to admit, that would be pretty damn hilarious to see an actual application written in scheme. ;D
Hmm, pretty sure I wrote an app in scheme when I was messing with that...
I've written applications in Scheme. None of them did anything remotely useful, but they WERE applications.