Talk:BitTorrent: Difference between revisions
intro is extremely subjective, and the article does not do a good job to deal with objectivity and applications overall. |
Mindmatrix (talk | contribs) m Reverted edit by 14.102.123.110 (talk) to last version by Sceeegt |
||
(22 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes| |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{afd-merged-from|BitTorrent index|BitTorrent index|12 September 2016}} |
{{afd-merged-from|BitTorrent index|BitTorrent index|12 September 2016}} |
||
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR|action1date=17:38, 3 Nov 2004|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/BitTorrent/archive1|action1result=reviewed|action1oldid=7086920}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=PR |
|||
|action1date=17:38, 3 Nov 2004 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/BitTorrent/archive1 |
|||
|action1result=reviewed |
|||
|action1oldid=7086920 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{onlinesource |
{{onlinesource |
||
| year=2005| section=March 1-10| author=Darren Waters| title=How Doctor Who spread on the net| org=BBC News| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4328781.stm| date=March 8, 2005 |
|||
| year=2005 |
|||
| year2=2005| section2=May 20-30| title2= BitTorrent maker sets up search| org2=BBC News| url2=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4587371.stm| date2=May 27, 2005 |
|||
| section=March 1-10 |
|||
| year3=2005| section3=July 10-20| author3=John Cranmer| title3=Bound to be Gagged| org3=Gay Times| date3=July 17, 2005 |
|||
| year4=2006| author4=Spencer Kelly| title4=BitTorrent battles over bandwidth| org4=BBC News| url4=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4905660.stm| date4=April 16, 2006 |
|||
| author=Darren Waters |
|||
| title=How Doctor Who spread on the net |
|||
| org=BBC News |
|||
| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4328781.stm |
|||
| date=March 8, 2005 |
|||
| year2=2005 |
|||
| section2=May 20-30 |
|||
| title2= BitTorrent maker sets up search |
|||
| org2=BBC News |
|||
| url2=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4587371.stm |
|||
| date2=May 27, 2005 |
|||
| year3=2005 |
|||
| section3=July 10-20 |
|||
| author3=John Cranmer |
|||
| title3=Bound to be Gagged |
|||
| org3=Gay Times |
|||
| date3=July 17, 2005 |
|||
| year4=2006 |
|||
| author4=Spencer Kelly |
|||
| title4=BitTorrent battles over bandwidth |
|||
| org4=BBC News |
|||
| url4=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4905660.stm |
|||
| date4=April 16, 2006 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=365}} |
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=365}} |
||
Line 52: | Line 24: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Is bundles.bittorrent.com is 'a download site which is prohibited and promotes copyright infringement'? == |
|||
== the BitTorrent entry is perfectly fine - please don't dumb it down ! == |
|||
it's a really good article - it's clear and precise ! |
|||
Am I misunderstanding the essence of [[BitTorrent_(company)#BitTorrent_Bundle]]? Please see this (attempt at a) discussion over whether we can/should link to Madonna's bundle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IndianBio#Accusations_about_personal_behavior_that_lack_evidence_are_considered_personal_attacks... It's hard to deal with someone who thinks users are uploadable to a website. <sic> And conflates protocols, domains and hostnames. And seems to be saying we need to delete [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(company)#External_links this page section]! --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 06:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I completely agree, it's perfect how it is. Provides precise information, but simple enough for people with no CS background. [[User:Jakesyl|Jakesyl]] ([[User talk:Jakesyl|talk]]) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== bittorrent.com malware == |
|||
I support that. If only all articles were written like this one! As the years have gone by, it might need an update to the current state of things. Thanks in advance. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.218.24.67|80.218.24.67]] ([[User talk:80.218.24.67|talk]]) 10:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
If you install the Bittorrent Web, your PC will be riddled with bloat ware, malware, web browser extensions installed, search engine changed, etc. Beware. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:600:9500:3180:BC17:E90:56BC:5C8E|2601:600:9500:3180:BC17:E90:56BC:5C8E]] ([[User talk:2601:600:9500:3180:BC17:E90:56BC:5C8E#top|talk]]) 06:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== POV problems == |
|||
== Update last paragraph of summary == |
|||
This article currently has POV problems. For example, the Adoption section does not mention ''anywhere'' that BitTorrent has also been adopted for copyright infringement. Although BitTorrent does have many legitimate uses (I've used it for legal downloads myself), there are studies (e.g. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ ) (maybe there is a more up-to-date one somewhere) showing that a majority-vast majority of downloads are infringing). |
|||
Are there any news stats for "As of 2013, BitTorrent has 15–27 million, concurrent users, at any time." seen on the last paragraph of the article summary? BitTorrent has expanded probably exponentially like the rest of the internet in those 7 years. [[User:DannyDouble|DannyDouble]] ([[User talk:DannyDouble|talk]]) 21:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It's totally appropriate to mention the legal uses, but having an Adoption section and lead not mentioning copyright infringement is like having an article on tanks without mentioning war. Relegating this to a "Legal issues" section is not adequate. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] - [[User_talk:Mattflaschen|Talk]] 19:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Disputing claim that bittorrent generated Internet traffic, with 2.46% of down, and 27.58% of up traffic == |
|||
I think it is sufficient to have the legal issue only, cause the article is about the technology, the protocol. So the adoption section provides the information on more or less different implementations of the protocol/service. Your point that "is like having an article on tanks without mentioning war" is thereby not valid cause it is not about tanks it is more about the steel, engine and other parts that is used to make tanks. I dont think i need to include world war II in every article about engines. Of-course this protocol has some controversy but there is a legal issue section which is more than enough. i think there are plenty of articles in wikipedia that specially addresses the copyright infringement issues regarding peer to peer protocols. so no need to further intensify the matter. [[User:Nibir2011|Nibir2011]] ([[User talk:Nibir2011|talk]]) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
In first section is mentioned that ''In 2019, BitTorrent was a dominant file sharing protocol and generated a substantial amount of Internet traffic, with 2.46% of downstream, and 27.58% of upstream traffic'' I would like to dispute this on those reasons: |
|||
I've removed the tag. Read [[WP:CSECTION]]. It's ok to cover criticism/legal issues in the "legal issues" section that deals with file sharing. Note that email allows people to send copyrighted attachments (see [[ICanHazPDF]]), but is not officially intended for copyright infringement as a technology. Thus copyright infringement is not covered as a "use" of email in the [[Email]] article. -- [[User:Callinus|Callinus]] ([[User talk:Callinus|talk]]) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
As I don't see any obvious reason why up and down traffic should be not equivalent (remember each date that you send, you're sending it to somebody so what's on your side upstream is on receiving side downstream). |
|||
== Untitled == |
|||
After checking referenced article "doi:10.1002/cpe.5723" I found that article itself is not about this subject but rather about energy consumption of BiTtorent network, |
|||
"First a bit of history-and-culture stuff. I was working on Mojo |
|||
They are mentioning original statement in introduction page, but not as part of their study. And they are referencing ''The Global Internet Phenomena Report, Sandvine; 2019.'' as source for that information. |
|||
Nation, in its secret pre-launch mode in early 2000, with Jim McCoy, |
|||
Doug Barnes, Greg Smith, and Bram Cohen..." "Mojo |
|||
Nation lineage went through a series of restarts and a changing lineup |
|||
of performers. Err, I mean of programmers. During this time, Bram |
|||
Cohen left Mojo Nation and invented BitTorrent. The goals of |
|||
BitTorrent can be seen as a subset of the goals of Mojo Nation. I |
|||
learned from the success of BitTorrent that it can help to limit the |
|||
scope of features you are trying to combine into one software project. |
|||
" |
|||
https://archive.is/SqYkz#selection-71.2178-71.2248 (https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2011-July/006560.html) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.71.62.41|198.71.62.41]] ([[User talk:198.71.62.41#top|talk]]) 15:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
For that last reference, I wasn't able to get hand on that so I wasn't able to verify if it's mentioned there and how they get that number. |
|||
== Hyper distribution == |
|||
[[User:Burlak23|Burlak23]] ([[User talk:Burlak23|talk]]) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Yes it might be arcane and with only a few references, but as long as it is an article it fits here. If [[hyper distribution]] is not sufficiently notable then please take its article to AfD and only remove the link to it if it gets deleted, but until then the link in BitTorrent is quite appropriate. [[User:Eno Lirpa|Eno Lirpa]] ([[User talk:Eno Lirpa|talk]]) 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: The obvious reason that an identical upload and download rate would result in significant differences in percentage share is that the vast, vast majority of Internet traffic is downloads; Web servers are not considered to be uploading their bytes every time. Most Web users never upload anything; their upstream consists solely of GET requests, unless they're sending email, or playing a game, or using chat software. |
|||
: BitTorrent accounts for a significant amount of downloads, but it's competing against all other downstream traffic for its share. There are far fewer competing upload categories. The remainder is almost surely entirely other P2P or high-bandwith duplex activities like video calls. |
|||
: [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 18:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Sandvine is the source for all these claims, indeed. The problem is it now says it is just 4% upstream and not even on mobile networks. Also, they probably do not have high enough visability on this anyway. As for your confusion about upstream and downstream, it is a famous rule that when you download something on bittorrent you should stay on the upload as long as possible. So the difference is not at all surprising. [[User:Valery Zapolodov|Valery Zapolodov]] ([[User talk:Valery Zapolodov|talk]]) 10:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested merge 30 September 2024 == |
|||
== Highly-Skewed POV == |
|||
I propose the merging of [[Torrent file]] into here BitTorrent. There's not much of a reason for it to be fractured and separate from here. On a side note, that article is also very lacking in references as it is. [[User:Sceeegt|Sceeegt]] ([[User talk:Sceeegt|talk]]) 00:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I see that it is not a new topic of concern, but the introduction (and indeed the article) leans heavily towards a subjective perspective rather than objectively what Bit Torrent ''does'' or how it ''works''. It's strange so see within the introduction so much targeted wikilinks and concepts more-or-less related to potential copyright infringement. Yet search the whole article for a mention of GNU/Linux name and there is nothing. Bit Torrent is a protocol to distribute large files, and it has proven to be a particularly useful method for several reasons: 1) It reduces the bandwidth requirement of the host or originator; 2) It can work with incomplete files; 3) The original host can be removed and yet the torrent can yet live. Some minor aspects of this are given in detail in the article, yet the introduction is simply appalling by its appeal to people who apparently care about the ''perceived'' (and hence ''subjective use'') strongly over ''basic objective capabilities''. One can indeed lead into and certainly allow the discussion of all uses of Bit Torrent, but it's ridiculous to see the introduction so plagued with strong-handed terms which are barely a veil for so-called "intellectual property" violations when common uses like distributing Linux OSes is not mentioned once in the article. Be careful and revise against the powers that be, please. [[User:DAID|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID|talk]]) 03:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 01:55, 3 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BitTorrent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BitTorrent index was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 September 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into BitTorrent. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is bundles.bittorrent.com is 'a download site which is prohibited and promotes copyright infringement'?
[edit]Am I misunderstanding the essence of BitTorrent_(company)#BitTorrent_Bundle? Please see this (attempt at a) discussion over whether we can/should link to Madonna's bundle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IndianBio#Accusations_about_personal_behavior_that_lack_evidence_are_considered_personal_attacks... It's hard to deal with someone who thinks users are uploadable to a website. <sic> And conflates protocols, domains and hostnames. And seems to be saying we need to delete this page section! --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
bittorrent.com malware
[edit]If you install the Bittorrent Web, your PC will be riddled with bloat ware, malware, web browser extensions installed, search engine changed, etc. Beware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:BC17:E90:56BC:5C8E (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Update last paragraph of summary
[edit]Are there any news stats for "As of 2013, BitTorrent has 15–27 million, concurrent users, at any time." seen on the last paragraph of the article summary? BitTorrent has expanded probably exponentially like the rest of the internet in those 7 years. DannyDouble (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Disputing claim that bittorrent generated Internet traffic, with 2.46% of down, and 27.58% of up traffic
[edit]In first section is mentioned that In 2019, BitTorrent was a dominant file sharing protocol and generated a substantial amount of Internet traffic, with 2.46% of downstream, and 27.58% of upstream traffic I would like to dispute this on those reasons:
As I don't see any obvious reason why up and down traffic should be not equivalent (remember each date that you send, you're sending it to somebody so what's on your side upstream is on receiving side downstream).
After checking referenced article "doi:10.1002/cpe.5723" I found that article itself is not about this subject but rather about energy consumption of BiTtorent network, They are mentioning original statement in introduction page, but not as part of their study. And they are referencing The Global Internet Phenomena Report, Sandvine; 2019. as source for that information.
For that last reference, I wasn't able to get hand on that so I wasn't able to verify if it's mentioned there and how they get that number.
Burlak23 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The obvious reason that an identical upload and download rate would result in significant differences in percentage share is that the vast, vast majority of Internet traffic is downloads; Web servers are not considered to be uploading their bytes every time. Most Web users never upload anything; their upstream consists solely of GET requests, unless they're sending email, or playing a game, or using chat software.
- BitTorrent accounts for a significant amount of downloads, but it's competing against all other downstream traffic for its share. There are far fewer competing upload categories. The remainder is almost surely entirely other P2P or high-bandwith duplex activities like video calls.
- Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sandvine is the source for all these claims, indeed. The problem is it now says it is just 4% upstream and not even on mobile networks. Also, they probably do not have high enough visability on this anyway. As for your confusion about upstream and downstream, it is a famous rule that when you download something on bittorrent you should stay on the upload as long as possible. So the difference is not at all surprising. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested merge 30 September 2024
[edit]I propose the merging of Torrent file into here BitTorrent. There's not much of a reason for it to be fractured and separate from here. On a side note, that article is also very lacking in references as it is. Sceeegt (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Technology
- C-Class vital articles in Technology
- C-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- High-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- C-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press