Talk:BitTorrent/Archive 3

message: I've removed a few external links and a couple of unnecessary headings. We don't need to become a repository for every BitTorrent FAQ and tracker that there is. That's what Google is for. Kevin 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :In May 2005, on the same day the tracker website elitetorrents.org was shut down, Bram Cohen released a new beta version of BitTorrent that eliminated the need for Web site hosting of centralized servers known as "trackers".
Readers connect dots that shouldn't be connected here. This wording suggests a cause/effect relationship that is unprovable and biased for this supposedly "unbiased" encyclopedia.
:I agree, somewhat. But could you word it in any other natural/easy-to-read way? Because I can't. --logixoul 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the EliteTorrents info doesn't need to be there at all.. splintax (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aight, now that you said that, I noticed it was in the Copyright Enforcement section as well. I'm removing it from the problematic place. --logixoul 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous wording 

message: Under the subsection for API there is an external link to PEP, though with the entire URL and one of the brackets visible. I tried correcting it just now, but found that it is actually typed correctly and for whatever reason not displaying itself as it should. Does anyone know how to fix this? Take a look at it if you're not sure what I mean. 134.114.59.41 05:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an earlier link, which I have fixed, but it still reads badly. I don't know enough about it to improve the grammar. --Mike Van Emmerik 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  API: PEP link trouble 

message: It currently says leeches are on asynchronous connections, but it seems like asymmetric makes more sense (i.e. download speed much faster than upload). Also another reason for accidental leeching might be firewall or port-mapping rules the user is unaware of, either in their Linksys-or-whatever router or a VoIP terminal adapter. However, I'm not clueful enough about the current state of the client software to know how well the clients deal with outgoing-initiated-only connections. Ttwaring 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asymmetric is correct. From what I can see, you are no more likely to leech if you're unconnectable. That would just slow your upload and download down, since you can't connect to peers. (It's not like there are more connectable seeds than peers.. well, on average, that wouldn't be logical, though there could be some correlation between newbies not seeding and not being connectable..) splintax (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leech section 

message: Re the blurb on "broadcatching", it might be worth mentioning that the torrent indexer site  TorrentSpy supports RSS feeds of torrents that are in specific categories (you can get RSS feeds of those categories). Just a thought. - nathanrdotcom 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcatching 

message: I was wondering what protocol BitTorrent uses.  Is it TCP or UDP?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.215.174 (talk • contribs) 
:As far as I can understand, TCP.  -   nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here wondering the same thing. It appears to be TCP -- added to the article. -- Jon Dowland 13:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, BitTorrent uses TCP for most data, though clients with DHT or UDP tracker support do use UDP for those purposes. However, I think it's more accurate to describe BitTorrent as "utilizing HTTP", since HTTP is a subset of TCP... splintax (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocol

message: I get how other p2p programs are able to connect and download from users, because they're all done manually. I was wondering however that how BTclients are able to connect to some peers and start downloading, while it doesn't connect to other peers?
someone care to fill me in? (Cloud02 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure I understand your question, however in some torrent clients there are adjustable limits on how many peers it will connect to. Also, some peers will always be 'unconnectable' (usually behind a firewall or NAT box, and no TCP port forwarding has been configured). Two unconnectable peers can't communicate with each other. --ozzmosis 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "they're all done manually"? BT uses the tracker to communicate with peers - the tracker gives you a list of IP addresses to contact, and the BT client performs a handshake with them to initiate communication. splintax (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes you are not able to connect to every peer. Sometimes the peer just logged off so you would be trying to connect to a peer that isn't running BT. Also Azureus is making a system that computes where you are on the internet. http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Vivaldi_View  AgentSmith15 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does a user connect to other peers? 

message: Moving trackers to Bittorrent_tracker and indexers to Bittorrent_Search_Engine. Why didn't you think of that. -- Dodo bird 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links: trackers and indexers 

message: This is probably a dumb question (Google didn't answer it for me, which is always a bad sign...):
:Is Bluetooth limited to files transferred via the Internet?  Strikes me there might be some benefit in implementing it in other file transfer situations such as e.g. Bluetooth.  As I understand it, there are two useful characteristics to BT:
::i. distribution of data to reduce loads on servers
::ii. the ability to stop and restart downloads without breaking
Let's say your gaming device has a Bluetooth version of BT built into it, which runs in the background.  Place a few Bluetooth seeding points in e.g. train stations and provide users with free new movies, clips and games updates on the fly (kinda like an ongoing Easter egg feature).  Allow users to watch the progress of the updates and charge them for downloads completed over the Internet (works as a teaser ad, like with movies).
Is this feasible?  Attractive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.169.116 (talk • contribs) 
:Would be much more feasible to use a wifi access point (which Google will stream ads through in their new public wifi thing) since very few laptops come with built-in bluetooth but just about every laptop comes with built-in wifi. Cynical 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth/Bit Torrent thoughts 

message: The section 
: The BitTorrent web-service Prodigem has made available an ability to any web application capable of parsing XML through its standard Representational State Transfer (REST) based interface. 
confused me.  An ability to what? Ducky 00:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodigem clarification? 

message: What looked like interesting and potentially valid information was added by 87.103.87.220  without edit comment, and admittedly without any citations either.  But then, also without comment and with no cited dis-proving to boot, it was reverted half an hour later by Cynical.  What's going on?  Is this article 'finished' and no more detail is needed?  Did Cynical manage to prove to his/her satisfation that that information was false?  If so, why no comment to that effect?  Surely a  tag could have been added to encourage us all - including the user at 87.103.87.220 - to try to verify the information?  Maybe it didn't suit Cynical's POV?  Just seems a bit harsh and negative to me. --Nigelj 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material coming and going? 

message: I tidied up this section a few days ago, but as I said in my edit comment at the time, it is an obvious honey-pot for link-spam.  There is no way, as time goes by, that this article can hold a link to every legitimate .torrent file that someone, somewhere, would like to publicise.  Maybe we need a few most-notable examples here, then a link to a new page where people can compete to list all their links, or maybe not even that - just remove the honey-pot.  What do others think? --Nigelj 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam in 'Authorized use of BitTorrent' 

message: References 12 and 13 show up to me as:
^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified 
^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified
Mathiastck 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error Message in References 

message: Encouraged by the 5th pillar of wikidom, I was (perhaps foolishly) bold in updating the How BitTorrent Works section.  I found the who section informative, but it seemed to lack a clear beginning or end.  I sucked what I felt to be the main juice of the article out and reformed it to add in a beginning and an end, and reword some of the more difficult passages.  I appologize to the original author if I stepped on your toes, I tried to maintain your voice as much as possible while adding more structure and references.
I hope it pleases.
--Justinwiley 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamped How BitTorrent Works Section 

message: There is a brief segment on broadcatching as a thing to come, but TVTAD (http://www.tvtad.com/) does indeed do what that paragraph describes, listens to an RSS feed for new releases of series, and auto-starting them for download. If someone could add that to the wiki, itd be great.
85.164.1.105 10:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcatching exists 

message: The Etiquette section discussing the theoretical impossibility of a 1.0 ratio on a single torrent is of no practical relevance to anyone and a pointless thought experiment. Therefore I suggest it be completely rewritten or simply removed. It is true that it is impossible for every member of a swarm on a single torrent to reach a 1.0 or higher ratio. However, noone asks you to since most people realize that it is impossible. Private trackers track only a global ratio which is the sum of anything a user uploads or downloads on any torrent he participates in. A user might not get the chance to seed back a specific torrent at all remaining with a 0.0 ratio for that torrent but then get a 2.0 ratio on another torrent which makes up for it. It is perfectly possible for all users of a tracker to have a 1.0 or higher global ratio, both in theory and pracice. Unless someone has major objections, I will rewrite the Etiquette section, removing the irrelevant discussion of ratio on a single torrent.
Begin new comments from --Spinoza12 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly possible for all users of a tracker to have a 1.0 or higher global ratio, both in theory and pracice.
In theory and practice, it is most certainly not.--Spinoza12 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite Of Etiquette Section Needed 

message: I recently updated this section. Apart from (attempting to) clarify some statements, the main changes were:
* replacing 'fragment' by 'piece';
* replacing the section about 'rare fragments' (which should be downloaded first) by a section stating that clients download pieces (/fragments) in random order.
Both changes are based on the BitTorrent protocol specification , which mentions 'pieces' instead of 'fragments' exclusively, and also contains no mention of 'rare pieces', but does suggest downloading pieces in random order.
All my changes were reverted by Haakon claiming only that "'piece' is not in the bittorrent terminology". I have reverted back to my revision, and before the page is reverted again, I would like Haakon (or anyone else) to provide a source stating that 'fragment' is the proper term, even though the official specification uses the term 'piece'. In this case, please replace the terms in the current revision, instead of reverting it entirely. My contribution contains much more changes (again based on the official specification) than changing this term alone.
130.89.167.52 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, I didn't notice all the other changes. This is what I get for editing first thing in the morning. Very sorry, and thanks for your work. Haakon 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to "Downloading Torrents and Sharing Files" 

message: The info on share ratio could be clearer, I think. I was trying to work out if each file being downloaded is treated separately, in terms of share ratio, or if having other files with a high share rating (acting as seeds) gives the user a better download global share ratio, and thus faster downloads. From the reference to a global share ratio on certain sites requiring registration, it seems that this is not the case in standard BitTorrent clients, but I'm not quite sure if I've understood this correctly. --Singkong2005 talk 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Share ratio - trying to clarify 

message: Trademark notices are not necessary in Wikipedia articles. BitTorrent Inc can not insist on it being there. If the fact that BitTorrent is a trademark is of interest to readers (and at that point in the article), then we should leave it of course; I think it appears as out-of-place legalese which does not belong in an encyclopedia, so I removed it. The VP of Engineering at BitTorrent Inc reinserted it. What do others think? Haakon 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe rephrase it to something more encyclopedic, like As with other famous names like Linux, BitTorrent is a registered trademark. or something like that? -- ReyBrujo 11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went with a ™ and a footnote - that should keep my legal dept happy and not ugly up the article - does that work for everybody?   I'm trying to balance the wikipedia way with the need to keep legal from taking over the issue. Trapper 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have to abide by the legal department of your company. Sorry. Haakon 10:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really see why it should be included Martijn Hoekstra 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe Wikipedia will try to fetch BitTorrent as a trademark. But IANAL, so I don't know if others can try to trademark it because BitTorrent didn't pursue Wikipedia but had done others. I stand on my opinion that making the sentence a bit more encyclopedic is acceptable. -- ReyBrujo 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of this the same way open source is licensed - people can use the BT mark subject to a polic and part of that policy is saying on first use that it is a trademark - if folks have no prpoblem with GPL then should not have a problem with this.    Further in this cass I think it is important because the article gives the impression the BT is simply the name of a potocol, it's not.  It's the name of a product and a company.   We could approach it in the headers "This article is about the protocol for the client, see BitTorrent Clientsand for the company that owns the trademark "BitTorrent" see BitTorrent Inc" - does that work?   Haakon can you live with that? Trapper 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark notice