Talk:BitTorrent/Archive 1

message: This should not be mentioned: "the standard eDonkey2000 protocol provides little "leech resistance" -- there are no benefits in providing upload bandwidth, just a UL:DL speed ratio when the upload speed is below 10 kB/s." 
This is not accurate! All edonkey supporting clients I know prioritize upload to people uploading to you, and try to validate clients as well. It does a lot more than BitTorrent to stop leeching and is a lot more efficient for large groups of files. 
Ofcourse it *can* fully replace BitTorrent: if you make an edonkey server to share a small collection of files, and let people connect to it, that will do it. I wont get into technicality, but you can limit people from sharing their files, and you can get people to connect to a server by clicking a link, just like a .torrent file without actually having to download a file.
Further more about leech protection. In mldonkey, I *dont* upload to BitTorrent, since I think edonkey is more efficient. What does BitTorrent do to stop me leeching? 
But if I try not to upload to edonkey, my download speed drops significantly. 
Also speaking about efficiency: have a look at this:
 Client Downloaded  Uploaded
 eMu 8376563  19087360
 OVR 4239362  4359714
 eDK 3151872  3502080
 tML 1299456  1474560
 sZA 359424  274432
This is just taken right now, from my upload list: 22:30pm, 30th June. What efficiency! -- I'm downloading 23 files, download maxed out at 60KB/sec, upload is set to 20KB/sec (bandwidth limit 26KB), also maxed out.
So please dont slander and say things like edonkey offers low leech protection, the original protocol was a little weak on leech protection, but it is of no relevance today. All ed2k clients now offer maximum leech protection, and older clients just get banned.
And as far as I know the only client that exploited the original edonkey protocol was mldonkey =<1.16, the reputation kinda stuck :) -- ofcourse using that client today, gets you banned.
Anyway, please review the bias against edonkey in the article. Although I'm also biased against BitTorrent, I wouldnt post such information on a non discussion page. 
- Comment: I believe you would get different results in comparing edonkey to bittorrent if you where to try to max out the bandwidth of 10 mbit upload and 10 mbit download (which is a surprisingly common type of broadband in some countries) on a single file - for example the latest episode of a tv-show. For this bittorrent is, in my experience, superior.
:: I think in that situation, it may win depending on the source number difference. At the very least, finding sources for a single file is indeed faster on bittorrent since there is a tracker that keeps a separate list of sources for each file. Hardly efficient for tens of millions of files though and on edonkey, you get the benefit of finding sources on *any* server, not limited to the current tracker.--User:Hackeron 22:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Views 

message: "While illegal ideas"
Think about this for a sec. What's an illegal idea?
: Ask the Attorney General.  It is his job to know everything that is legal and illegal, after all, isn't it?
Well, planning a murder is illegal, and it's an idea, so I guess planning a murder(Or other crime(s).) could be called an "illegal idea", although I'm not a lawyer, and also isn't it that the Supreme Court's job, because you can't interpret the law if you don't know it.--Dp462090 00:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal ideas? 

message: Check the site, then put it on here. It's simple, and green. 70.17.38.39 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BitTorrent has a new logo... 

message: I've seen the term "choking" used quite a bit... Can we have an explanation of it?
:It refers to the state of an uploader, i.e. the thread that sends data to another peer. When a connection is choked, it means that the transmitter doesn't currently want to send anything on that link.
:I've added it to the definitions section, along with some others. :-) splintax (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choking 

message: In this page are many links to sites tracking specific copyrighted content, such as the South Park or Simpsons trackers.  Is it legally appropriate for Wikipedia to provide links to sites which enable copyright violation?
:As has been noted before, this is legal in many countries. Even in the US, I don't think there is any law preventing linking to a site that provides links to material which are protected under copyright. I suppose the question is rather whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to provide links to resources rather than links to other pages that describe the given topic. I think the links are helpful to anyone trying to understand what BitTorrent is. Many other wikipedia pages have external links like this. I say keep them.
::i agree.  the same argument (that wikipedia shouldn't provide information which can be used to infringe copyrights) holds for bittorent itself.  i think it is critical that a distinction be made between Italic textinfringingItalic text copyrights and providing the Italic textabilityItalic text to do so, especially when the information provided can be used for legitimate purposes.
 
::In the past it's been safe to link to an infringer. With the current legal climate, that might end. Caution is advisable.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.110.92 (talk • contribs) .
::My personal opinion is that linking to generic trackers that may contain copyrighted content is OK, as long as they are notable, but linking to the Simpsons trackers etc, mentioned above, which specifically intend to infringe copyright rather than just track what users upload is unencyclopædic. splintax (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page have links to copyrighted content? 

message: Bram Cohen's website says BitTorrent is released under the MIT License, not a "BitTorrent License." -- somebody
Huh? It does say BitTorrent Open Source License, and the content most definitely is not the MIT License. -- 82.103.211.85 05:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: LokiTorrent shut down today. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/loki_down_mpaa/ Jooler 23:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lokitorrent

message: The italicized paragraph in this section is odd, as there is no citation for the quote.  It should probably be re-written.  --Paraphelion 11:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's from the original WebTorrent paper here; unfortunately it 404'd when I checked it just now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  web torrent quote 

message: Does anyone else think all links to existing torrent sites should be removed? Given that most torrent sites are being shut down left and right these days, it's best not to advertise each address to anyone who may be reading. Ofcourse, by typing this, I'm not saying that I support any downloading, because I have a NPOV. - PSYCH 09:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torrent Links 

message: I don't know why, but someone found relevant to remove info about eXeem, LokiTorrent and Suprnova. They are (or were) very important aspects of BitTorrent. 
--Jolivierld 21:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you'd know why if you read this talk page.  eXeem was getting too much discussion on the BitTorrent page for something that actually isn't and never was part of BitTorrent, which is why it has its own article now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: i read recently that the bittorrent protocol now accounts for over 50% of total net traffic. i think on /. - if anyone could source this statistic - would be worth quoting.
:Try the new link to InfoAnarchy. SqueakBox 22:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
::Check your sources: I followed the links that you've provided and they say something different: bittorrent accounts for 53% of all P2P-traffic and 35% of total net traffic. From these numbers one can calculate that P2P accounts for 66% of all net traffic. 193.190.14.94 09:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50% of net traffic