Talk:BitTorrent/Archive 2

message: Since the Etiquette section mentioned it is considered to polite to upload as much data as you have downloaded, I added a paragraph on why many consider such a policy a bad idea.  I didn't spend much time on it, so if someone wants to clean it up or better explain the math behind it, feel free.  I think both items should stay because it is considered polite by many users of BT to seed until a 1.00 ratio but many users also are well aware that it is rather impossible to accomplish due to the math involved.
:I think that most of this should be stripped out as it applies to all P2P applications, not just BitTorrent.  We should merge the section into P2P. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
::The information on the math involved in reaching a 1:1 ratio is purely BitTorrent.  And since BitTorrent, more than any other form of P2P, is concerned with the ratio of data shared to data downloaded I think it should stay here with possibly the addition of a similar section to the general P2P article. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
:::That bit it, yes, and I agree it should be left in.  However, many other P2P systems have implemented anti-leech systems and much of the content can be generalised and placed in the P2P article.  violet/riga (t) 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette 

message: This article has about a screen and a half of discussion on legality, starting with "BitTorrent was used to distribute high-quality bootlegs of the movie The Matrix Reloaded created from film prints just days after the movie was released in theaters."
Yet our Gun or Pistol articles don't contain text like "The pistol was used to kill 12 students in the Columbine High School massacre in April 1999".  If they did, articles on weaponry would each be hundreds of pages long.
Do we have an elevated "expectation of extraordinary legality" for software that doesn't apply to other tools?   Should BitTorrent be criticised here because it doesn't prevent illegal actions?  Ojw 6 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
:Following section is phrased poorly: "BitTorrent, like any other computer tool capable of copying files, can be used to copy files without the permission of the copyright holder. Indeed, some might say that BitTorrent has become famous for its ability to do just that." First of all, BitTorrent itself isn't capable of copying anything - it is a file transfer protocol. For the same reason it isn't a tool Italic textper seItalic text, unless we're talking about the client. Something like "BitTorrent, like any other file transfer protocol, can be used to distribute files without the permission of the copyright holder. This ethically questionable use of the protocol is the main reason for its success." I removed the weasel "some might say" bit too. Although I think I replaced it with another weasel bit... Khokkanen 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed the section I mentioned. Now it's about a protocol instead of a copying tool. Otherwise it was fine so I left it as it was. Khokkanen 10:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality section

message: The etiquette section contains a few "strained" sentances. I would like to propose a rephrase of it, but first I would like to clear up some facts. The section currently says the following among other things:
"Additionally, this means that those who give back more data than they downloaded are hurting everyone else and since most torrents rely on users uploading more than they have downloaded to counteract users who logged off too early discouraging them from uploading is usually a bad idea."
This seems misleading at best, and incorrect at worst. Exactly how would one be 'hurting' anything by contributing more than one has downloaded? The only interpretation of the above I can think of, is that it is 'hurtful' with respect to attaining the 'perfect' swarm, as described before it. That is, if one is looking to distribute a file in a way that minimizes the overhead for all parties involved, everyone should share exactly as much as they have downloaded. One would be 'hurting' the perfection of the distribution process by contributing 'too much'. Is this what the author meant?
But beyond that I cannot see how it is correct in the general case. In practice, contributing to a swarm (in the general case) by seeding is never going to have any kind of negative impact on the average download speed of the swarm, regardless of whether other people are leechers or not. The above makes it sound like contributing more than 1:1 would be a bad thing even if everyone had the capability and will to contribute exactly 1:1.
 
:It is incorrect. I can't even understand what the author of that passage is basing it on, but I'm sure it's not bittorrent.
Scode 13:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing Eitquette section 

message: Does anybody know any discussion boards discussing a bunch of particular torrents?
:OH... like pirate sites... anonymous comment... jeeze, go search google news.--x1987x 02:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: File Discussion

message: The external links section has gotten out of hand again.  Again, Wikipedia is for information, not lists of links.  We need to remove most of it.  Per our previous discussion, I'm removing all the torrent search engines.  For now, I've left the forums listed.  Not sure how everyone feels about leaving these, but I'll leave it up for discussion.  I'm also taking down the "Registration Sites" as they appear to be search engines that also provide reviews on the files.
I removed the most recently listed guide because it is a repeat of information already linked to.  I also think the entire sections about "Technicial help and discussions", "Technical analyses", and "Legal" links should be removed, but I'll leave that up for discussion before I delete them.  My reasoning comes from the Wikipedia rules on external links.  coyote376 19:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links- again 

message: At List of BitTorrent clients we have a rather nice separated piece of data IMHO. Why don't we just get rid of the equivalent list in this page? --logixoul 17:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - but make sure all the information from this page is actually in the other page as well. List of BitTorrent clients really shouldn't exist at all - see bug 3744: Lists and comparisons. Brian Jason Drake 13:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy of list of clients 

message: Hi! A quick suggestion for an improvement to the intro. I suggested to somebody whose big media file is getting slammed that they offer a BitTorrent copy. They were afraid that it was like other p2p systems and that nobody would come to their site to read their intro before getting the file. The opening bit is great from a technical level, but I think it would be even better if it made clear that it's just a file transfer protocol, albeit one that's more scalable. --William Pietri 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for opening paragraph