Talk:BitComet

message: I have just downloaded and installed BitComet version 0.86, and I was surprised to see an add for AdultFriendFinder.com. I made a screenshot of it, which may be used in the article. --CableCat 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware or adware? 

message: I would like to point out that for the first time (that I know of) we have some independent and professional testing regarding the claims against BitComet, but I have seen no one add this to the article.
The Truth About BitComet 
This seems a far better source for info then the developer of a competing client, or any other source I've seen quoted here.
:Agreed. I found that paper on zeropaid while checking out alternative BT clients (uTorrent's been bought by BitTorrent inc. which has some users worried). Looks like Shad0w's criticism could be FUD, providing as it does no evidence, and being useful for promoting his own "super-seeding" innovation.Teaistheanswer (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The zeropaid article was in the article two revisions before yours, but I like the way you worded it better. BitComet definitely does abuse super-seeding, though, I've experienced it.--Theymos (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way you could confirm what you claim to have experienced is to have control of the bitcomet peer's computers. All major clients have 3rd party hacks and patches available that could cause them to be abusive to the testing done by Rob Topolski showed that Bitcomet did not take advantage of the optimistic unchoke because when it disconnects from the swarm it waits far too long before attempting to reconnect to a peer.Donb316 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I take exception to the characterization of padding files as "small". Certainly, everything is relative, but I have a padding file right now that is 522897 bytes in size. Am I correct in assuming that a file that big could potentially be created for every file in a multifile torrent? That would be insane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. While each padding file is "small" (though I'm currently looking at a 1016 kB one), they add up in multi-file torrents. The one I'm looking at has about 20MB of BitComet padding in total. - Alltat (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This has been debunked by the Rob Topolski paper and even if it was true both bitcomet and bitlord predated superseeding and it was the author's responsibility to determine how superseeding interacted with existing clients, but that's a moot point because when disconnecting the bitcomet peer waits far too long to reconnect for it to be of any advantage, in fact it would be a disadvantage. Donb316 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: From history: 04:43, 24 August 2007 Evilgohan2 (Talk | contribs) m (9,683 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Darthnader37; Although a forum post is not always a reputable source, it can be and in this case it is as reported by TorrentFreak: http://torrentfreak.com/bitcomet-pollut)
I (funchords) rewrote this section to get to the core issues and to cut through the inaccurate hype. TorrentFreak's article did not sustain many of Fuzzier's contentions -- specifically not to the amount of padding "storming" (whatever that is), the amount of overhead, and the danger of the "exploit" he discovered.  That said, some of Fuzzier's observations are accurate and -- presented dispassionately -- worth noting. Funchords 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take exception to the characterization of padding files as "small". Certainly, everything is relative, but I have a padding file right now that is 522897 bytes in size. Am I correct in assuming that a file that big could potentially be created for every file in a multifile torrent? That would be insane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. While each padding file is "small" (though I'm currently looking at a 1016 kB one), they add up in multi-file torrents. The one I'm looking at has about 20MB of BitComet padding in total. - Alltat (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Padding Files

message: It's shameful for BitComet to do this. I really liked BitComet and when I found AppHit.com (via BitComet.com website) I really liked that too. Then I found FileHippo.com and realised both looked and operated practically identical.
Internet Archives proof that FileHippo.com was first... with history going back to 2005. AppHit.com only started appearing in 2008.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.filehippo.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apphit.com/
I used a whois and you can clearly see that both apphit.com and bitcomet.com are affiliated with each other, same registar and everything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BitComet & Apphit vs FileHippo

message: BitComet exploits superseeding by disconnecting and connecting again as soon as it has got a piece from a superseed. Since BitLord is based on BitComet it probably does it too. I think this is quite important and should be added to the article.83.145.205.227 (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been debunked by the Rob Topolski paper and even if it was true both bitcomet and bitlord predated superseeding and it was the author's responsibility to determine how superseeding interacted with existing clients, but that's a moot point because when disconnecting the bitcomet peer waits far too long to reconnect for it to be of any advantage, in fact it would be a disadvantage. Donb316 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BitComet exploiting superseeding

message: The name says it all. I saw the list of peers with their p2p clients and I saw BitTornado ON my BitComet window!!!!
I've already took a snapshot of the evidence. Can't upload the snapshot though, because I'm not a Wiki member.
Here's the list of trackers I was on:
http://220.162.244.175:53880/announce
http://gamebt.ali213.net:8000/announce
http://t.ppnow.net:2710/announce
http://t.spacebomb.org:2710/announce
http://track.sextorrent.to:2710/announce
http://tracker.deluxebits.to:3552/announce
http://tracker.paradise-tracker.com:12000/announce
And here's the infohash of the torrent I was running:
cb81c4e7b1e67bb870e1af952dccf84201073753
Just type the hash into google and you'll find that torrent.
88.105.114.134 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BitComet's connected to BitTornado!!!! 

message: BitComet is no longer adware because it doesn't automatically display advertising. Before version 0.98, it did. It does display advertising in the web-based sections, but that is built into the HTML webpage the search page is at, not BitComet itself.
Just because it points at the ad page does not make it adware. Firefox's default search engine has ads, and Mozilla gets ad revenue from those ads, but Firefox is not Adware. This situation is similar.
I've made changes to the article accordingly. If someone could find one or two non-forum sources about this advertising change, that would be great.--Theymos (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need sources to include stuff in the article. I've added a [verification needed] to the adware section, though, since that source is broken and a forum source isn't particularly reliable anyway.--Theymos (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources were reliable because they were written statements from the BitComet staff members themselves on their own forums. Sadly the removal of their old forums has removed a lot of sources in the whole article. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adware change 

message: What value does the image add of this program at the top of the article? It's far too small to make anything out but a generic program window running in Windows Vista. It wasn't even reduced correctly, the Moiré is visible and what appears to be text is rainbow colored because improper resizing blurred the clear-typed text. Would a slightly larger screenshot of the program, say 600px wide qualify as fair use?
At minimum the image needs cleaned up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.76.92 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Image