Talk:BitTorrent

the BitTorrent entry is perfectly fine - please don't dumb it down !

it's a really good article - it's clear and precise !

I completely agree, it's perfect how it is. Provides precise information, but simple enough for people with no CS background. Jakesyl (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.24.67 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"sequential downloading" section requested!

I am talking about certain torrent clients ability to download a small chunk of the file and making that available for consumption (viewing, listening, etc) while more chunks are downloaded, essentially allowing the client to act as if the content was streamed.

I browsed the article but could not find anything on this. I therefore propose that a knowledgeable editor adds a small new section discussing this capability that torrent clients can have. If you object "this isn't part of the torrent specification" then at the very least, add a mention and a link onwards to a dedicated article.

Please note: I am certainly no expert and I'm not even sure what to call this feature. Please improve mercilessly :)

CapnZapp (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we could add that, although it may not be a good idea in this article. Some bitTorrent clients have a lot of features, others have the bare minimum. Where should we draw the line? Jakesyl (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

POV problems

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).

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. Mattflaschen - Talk 19:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Nibir2011 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BitTorrent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131204002125/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2011/aug/09/bittorrent-piracy to http://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2011/aug/09/bittorrent-piracy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)