I would like to avoid peers that don't share any files downloading from me, without having to block them one by one. Better yet, let me select the number of files under which they will be blocked.

I'm actually gonna stop using the program since I'm already tired of blocking leechers. I thought this was a sharing program but most people connect only to leech.

Hopefully this will be implemented soon and I can continue using it. Meanwhile I'll just use nicotine.

One must take into account a bug that I noted, reported and now awaiting further feedback and perhaps fixed before assuming a Fopnu user is not sharing any files. That is the alleged bug that is preventing users being able to obtain a copy of the users shared file library.

Sometimes users are told 'Timed-Out', others are told User is offline, library unavailable. This is happening when the user is Online and has a extensive Library of Shared Files.

I want to block peers with less than a given number of files from downloading from me and I want to send them an automatic message telling them they are blocked until they share more than the given number of files. And once they have more than the given number of files either the block is automatically lifted or they can send me a message to unblock them.

I have sometimes reason to not share anything, for example when I'm on a traffic limited network or I just don't have my external storage connected. I still remember when my favorite DC++ hubs started to require more and more minimum shares that I had no way to match.

Fopnu is not too popular, so you would likely just block a huge number of people who are trying it the first time, giving them bad experience, thus hindering Fopnu's adoption.

I'm strongly against this minimum share kind of gatekeeping feature. An encouraging "you are currently not sharing anything" notification could be beneficial though.

Very judgmental are we today ye gatekeepers?

I'm just concerned that a person without files might be a cop trying to catch some pirates. I'm an archivist and they may mistake me.

I've found a way to share only with people who share without the need to block anyone. You have to create a new group on the library and then you can add your friends to that group. So you need to add everyone with files to your friends and then to the group. Then on  the library just deselect all public shares and select the group instead.

So there is no need for this feature after all. While before some people could leech from me when I was afk and I couldn't block them if they didn't share enough files, now I have the reverse problem. There are people who I may have not seen that are sharing files and won't be able to download from me.

I believe a way to enforce/incentivize sharing is still necessary. Allowing free riding degrades the user experience for everyone. Take a look at the paper, Free riding on Gnutella revisited. https://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1109%2Fmdso.2005.31

From the paper:

I honestly believe being altruistic and sharing with people without shares is equally as bad as leeching since it encourages people to free ride. So it's in the benefit of everyone in the network to block leechers.

The problem I've encountered for now with this method is one person that said I wasn't sharing anything. Then I looked at his shares, saw that he was sharing, added him to friends and to the group and then sent him a message and saw that he had ignored me. So it's not perfect. But it's still better than allowing free riding.

I can't edit the previous post and I wanted to add that on the study above they saw how the number of free riders had gone from 75% to 85% in 5 years. As free riding increases those who share files become more vulnerable and copyright prosecution becomes more effective.

There is another problem I hadn't thought about before. If two people do this they will never see their shares and will block each other.

This attitude isn't going to help grow the network.  I haven't used p2p filesharing in at least a decade and though I have tens of terabytes of stuff to share, I'm definitely not throwing it up on a client/network I haven't used before willy nilly.  I'm going to download the client, fire it up and try it out for a bit.  If I have a really bad experience--getting banned from peers/not being able to transfer anything, I'm just going to assume the network is crap and not bother going any further.

I think this is actually a bad request because it essentially turns sharing into a walls and ladders problem. Instead of having people who leech with 0 files shared there will be less people with 0 files shared, and some subset of people who didn't share will start sharing fake files to get over the barrier to entry.
I believe that sharing fake files is worse than sharing no files.