Talk:BitTorrent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Search engines

Should we have a search engine here or not? Can we discuss the issue rather than reverting, we don't want an edit war. I propose we don't have one until this issue is discussed here, SqueakBox 22:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I put this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), and got this response:

It has been suggested we should not put a BitTorrent search engine external link in the article because of the legal ambiguity of BitTorrent. Ideas? SqueakBox 23:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There is no legal ambiguity about BitTorrent. It would be like making FTP illegal. If the site itself is subject to a CRIMINAL case then definitly no, but since all these things are civil suits, I don't think it's a problem. IANAL, ofcours, just my two cents gkhan 23:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

1. There is no legal ambiguity about BitTorrent. In no way is BitTorrent itself is illegal. However, it is very clear that people who run search engines will be prosecuted and shut down. These sites are obviously illegal by modern standards.
2. Since BitTorrent itself is running a search engine (for as long as it can...) there is no real need to include links to other ones.
3. This amounts to link spam. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and these sites are in not directly relevant to BitTorrent. It would be like including a link to Google in every article. —Sean κ. + 03:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the strength of this I am returning the search engine, as I fully agrree, SqueakBox 23:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

While in some countries there have been rulings against linking sites that link to copyrighted material, in the US it should be fine I think. However, that's not the issue. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If this was an article about that specific Torrent search engine the link would be appropriate, per Wikipedia:External links. However here's it not the official link to a web entity, neither is it an information source. That's what the external links section is for. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I think the link is very informative as it allows the reader to understand BitTorrent that much better, by searching for something, than would be the case otherwise, SqueakBox 02:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not buying it. External links is for content, not services. If we can't explain what bittorrent is in the article we've got bigger problems than not having a torrent search engine in the external links. --W(t) 02:38, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I'm buying it. A web directory is simply a database of links, however this page contains much more additional content describing the subject. The mere inclusion of these links does not render this page as a "directory", as you suggest. It's not like this is a print encyclopedia where we need to conserve space. --kizzle 07:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The official site, the first external link, is also a search engine. Are you suggesting we remove that too, and if we remove on we should move all 3, as your objections cover all 3 links. Whois is full of whois search engines, IP address is full of IP search locator sites, to give 2 examples. In my opinion by offering links to these engines we are very much helping our reader and doing our share towards disseminating the knowledge of everything. For me as a reader these external links have added value to these articles, and if we take tem away we make the articles less informative, SqueakBox 05:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The link to the official site is itsself information about bittorrent, namely "What is it's official site?". (It's also item one of what to link on the excellent Wikipedia:External links). If we're going to link madtorrent, why not link isohunt? and btbot? and bitoogle? and yotoshi? and ... ? --W(t) 03:24, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

That is what happens at Whois and IP address, and I believe all these other dsites should be linked here. Lets give our readers choice. And grouping together lots of rival sites links is not spamming, SqueakBox 03:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can we have a debate about external links, and not just blank them. Why deny them to our readers (disapproving of BitTorrent is no reason, SqueakBox 14:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that having a link to one search engine would be legal and helpful to readers. Any more than that just adds clutter and detracts from the information we are trying to provide. coyote376 04:21 10 Jun 05 (UTC)

Maybe create an article about bit torrent search engines..keeping track not only of active ones, but ones that have gotten take down notices and by who, etc. I agree, the search engine links don't belong here. --Paraphelion 14:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the legal controversies around the search engines creating a separate article sounds an excellent idea-and of course the search engine links would then live there (or not) but as a separate issue from this article. So strong support if someone will do it, 16:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since there seems to be an agreement that for the most part the search engines don't belong there, I am removing them. coyote376 23:37 13 Jun 05 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and even less for your spamming stance of only having MadTorrent search engine alone, SqueakBox 21:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

There may or may not be consensus, but at the very least there is a very large majority against including the links, at least three people have removed them (and that's not including the anons). --W(t) 21:51, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

The discussion here indicates there is not a consensus. How, given the above, can you possibly claim it is just me, SqueakBox 21:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Read back, it's everyone arguing against including them and you arguing for including them. Whether or not there is consensus against including them or not is subjective, but there very clearly is a strong majority against including them. --W(t) 21:56, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Legality of BitTorrent search engines

If BitTorrent search engines are to be chucked on grounds of dubious legality, I would like to see some greater argument as to why. I guess it is because these search engines actually store links to sites which violate copyright; but the same could be said of Google. A search engine simply lists what exists on the web, after all; it does not encourage users to search for particular individual terms. There are perfectly legitimate uses for a Torrent search engine; again, surely it is the users, not the provider, whose actions create issues of legality or illegality. -- WebDrake 17:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to the sites that have been shut down.

I'm not disputing that sites with search engines have been shut down. I just think it should be a point of discussion on the main page as to what the real legal issues and history are as regards BitTorrent search engines. After all, a lot of the time that websites shut down it's because Big People come down from on high like a ton of bricks and it's easier to cave in than to fight what might be a winning case in the long run. WebDrake 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal Issues Removed

I removed the "Legal Issues" section because it is not NPOV. Although BitTorrent can be use to infringe copyright, so can many other things such as FastTrack, Gnutella, eDonkey 2000, and even things such as DVD, CD-R, and the VCR. None of those articles have a whole section devoted to illegal uses of the technology. The only mentions of Intellectual Property issues are technical measures used to prevent infringement. In a broader scope, things such as cars, knives, and dice have illegal uses, and none of those are mentioned in the respective articles. The inclusion of a section here is simply FUD. --160.102.72.223 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

In light of this week's supreme court decision, I think legal issues are very relevant. In particular, if a program is marketed to infringe copyright (and, yes, I think Bram is a bloody fool for putting a search engine on the official BT webpage), then it can be legally liable for copyright infringement done with the program. This in mind, I restored the "legal issues" section. Samboy 29 June 2005 07:07 (UTC)

First of all, the inclusion of the search engine on the BitTorrent home pages does not constitute endorsement of copyright infringement, see the search engine TOS at [1]. Pay special attetion to sections 2 (agreement not to use the site to do illegal things, including copyright infringement), 4 (limitation of liablity), 5 (links are generated through an automated process, BitTorrent has no control), and 12 (DMCA safe harbor notification.) This clearly shows that BitTorrent is not marketed to encourage copyright violations. Also, you did not respond to any of my initial objections, and they are still valid. If you want to place a short section regarding the supreme court decision on the page, that would be okay, and I wouldn't revert it if it was NPOV, but I don't think that it is really that relavant. I will revert the legal issues section for now though. (BTW, I am the intial objector, I just forgot to sign my post) --160.102.72.223 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

OK, it's your POV that any concern over legal issues with BitTorrent is FUD. The NPOV and therefore the Wikipedian way to handle it is to make sure the Legal Issues section contains the calmest, most concise, most fact-based explanation of why fuss over legal issues should be regarded as unnecessary. It is not to remove the section, and thus any examination of the issues, entirely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 1 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Etiquette

Since the Etiquette section mentioned it is considered to polite to upload as much data as you have downloaded, I added a paragraph on why many consider such a policy a bad idea. I didn't spend much time on it, so if someone wants to clean it up or better explain the math behind it, feel free. I think both items should stay because it is considered polite by many users of BT to seed until a 1.00 ratio but many users also are well aware that it is rather impossible to accomplish due to the math involved.

I think that most of this should be stripped out as it applies to all P2P applications, not just BitTorrent. We should merge the section into P2P. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

The information on the math involved in reaching a 1:1 ratio is purely BitTorrent. And since BitTorrent, more than any other form of P2P, is concerned with the ratio of data shared to data downloaded I think it should stay here with possibly the addition of a similar section to the general P2P article. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

That bit it, yes, and I agree it should be left in. However, many other P2P systems have implemented anti-leech systems and much of the content can be generalised and placed in the P2P article. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Torrent Search Engines

I think its not fair that users like SqueakBox, Weyes delete torrent search engines. Bittorrent lucks search option and just giving Cohen's site which doesn't index most of the torrent sites is one sided... If the sites doesn't contain any adware/spyware and popups and offers good search for torrents it deserves to be in the links section

Wikipedia is not a web directory. --W(t) 13:46, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I agree with you and not Weyes on this one. I am deleting any stray search engine links because one link alone is spam for that company (ie none is better than one), but I do believe we should replace all the bitTorrent search engines or create a new article BitTorrent search engine and put them there, SqueakBox 14:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jun 22 Yes wiki is not a web directory that why it has information about a subject not just links... links complement the information If we take your reasoning Weyes then we should delete all links going outside of wiki

Nope, just those not per Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 03:10, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

In light of this week's US supreme court decision, I don't think we should be linking to these kinds of search engines. Bit Torrent was designed to make downloading of Linux distributions possible without overloading FTP servers; I have used it to download Fedora Core two and Fedora Core three. While people do use BitTorrent to "steal music and movies over the internet" (these are not my words; there are Ted Bridis' words from today's newspaper), I don't think we should encourage that activity by posting links in this article. Samboy 29 June 2005 05:13 (UTC)

Requested RFC for search engine issue

I posted a RFC for the search engine edit war, as the only consensus that seemes to be reached is that there is no consensus. We've been debating this for too long, it's time to get it resolved, and this is a good step towards doing that. I myself am undecided on the issue, but I do feel that it needs to be decided one way or the other.

I woukld like Weyes or someone to explain exactly why in Wikipedia:External links it prohibits the search engine links. See the end of Talk:IP address#ip2location, SqueakBox 23:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

1. First phrase of the first line: "Wikipedia is not a web directory", quoting from WP:NOT
2. BitTorrent search engines meet none of the criteria in the "What should be linked to" section
3. BitTorrent search engines meet none of the criteria in the "Maybe OK to add" section
4. BitTorrent search engines get taken down for copyright reasons all the time. In general, external links should be to sites that are likely to be there in a few years.

That enough reasons for not including the links? --Carnildo 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the BitTorrent search engine until this situation is resolved. None or many but one one is pure spam. I have also delinked the search engines on thios page to avoid similar spam, etc charges. I will respond to Carnildo later, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your none or all idea. That does make sense. But what happened to the Official BT Homepage? That site is not *primarily* a search engine. The *main* purpose of the site is information about BitTorrent stright from the creator. I think we should continue to include the BT Official Site in the external links. coyote376 June 29, 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Agreed, the bittorrent homepage should be linked obviously (heck, it's the first entry of WP:EL). When was this removed? --W(t) June 29, 2005 01:19 (UTC)

It is very much of a search engine. Keeping your favourite search engine and removing the rest sounds like spamming to me, SqueakBox June 29, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

It is the official homepage of bittorrent, there's both WP:EL and a huge pile of precedent saying this should be linked. If you object to it being linked as being a search engine, I've removed the description that says it's a search engine too (that's not what we're linking it for after all). --W(t) 29 June 2005 01:30 (UTC)

I have replaced it with their FAQ. Much more informative, and no search engine in site. Given the controversty over the search engines it is not acceptable to just have the BitTorrent one,

We link to the subject homepage for all subjects that have one, there is no reason for this article to be different. --W(t) 29 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)

I'm against linking to these kinds of search engines; BitTorrent is for downloading popular open source software without overloading FTP and web servers. Any other use is, I hope, not endorsed by Bram Cohen. In light of the supreme court decision, any other position is very dangerous. Samboy 29 June 2005 05:17 (UTC)

Seems clear that BT homepage should be linked to, and no other search engines. Link to BT homepage is necessary for informational purposes about what BT itself is, and if that link leads to a search engine, well, them's the breaks. Dcarrano 29 June 2005 06:05 (UTC)

I agree. If Bram wants to shoot himself in the foot by marketing BT as a copyright infringement application, we shouldn't stop linking to his page. Samboy 29 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to link to the home page when all it contains is a search engine and how to download the BT; in other words it contains no useful info, but it does mean we as Wikipedia endorse Bram's BT search engine and noone else's, SqueakBox June 29, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't endorse anything. We merely provide information, and in the case of subject homepages, it's information we've decided we want to provide for all articles. --W(t) 29 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Legality section

This article has about a screen and a half of discussion on legality, starting with "BitTorrent was used to distribute high-quality bootlegs of the movie The Matrix Reloaded created from film prints just days after the movie was released in theaters."

Yet our Gun or Pistol articles don't contain text like "The pistol was used to kill 12 students in the Columbine High School massacre in April 1999". If they did, articles on weaponry would each be hundreds of pages long.

Do we have an elevated "expectation of extraordinary legality" for software that doesn't apply to other tools? Should BitTorrent be criticised here because it doesn't prevent illegal actions? Ojw 6 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Following section is phrased poorly: "BitTorrent, like any other computer tool capable of copying files, can be used to copy files without the permission of the copyright holder. Indeed, some might say that BitTorrent has become famous for its ability to do just that." First of all, BitTorrent itself isn't capable of copying anything - it is a file transfer protocol. For the same reason it isn't a tool Italic textper seItalic text, unless we're talking about the client. Something like "BitTorrent, like any other file transfer protocol, can be used to distribute files without the permission of the copyright holder. This ethically questionable use of the protocol is the main reason for its success." I removed the weasel "some might say" bit too. Although I think I replaced it with another weasel bit... Khokkanen 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed the section I mentioned. Now it's about a protocol instead of a copying tool. Otherwise it was fine so I left it as it was. Khokkanen 10:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Vulnerabilities

Aren't torrent clients susceptible to viruses? Viruses can be disguised, can they not?

But this isn't specific to BitTorrent. --kizzle 20:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

They're no more vulnerable than any other method of file transfer. The one critisim against BitTorrent which actually has some truth in it is that a file cannot be scanned for viruses or spyware until it has been fully downloaded, whereas with traditiona peer-to-peer downloads files often can be scanned if only a portion has been received. However any good virus scanner or antispyware program will scan all files on opening/execution, making BitTorrent no more secure or insecure than the operating system itself.

On the plus side, due to the SHA hashing it is extremely unlikely a malevolent party can offer files through BitTorrent which are undistinguishable from the real deal. Jordi·✆ 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

BitTorrent is much safer than for instance [Internet Explorer] or Mozarella [Firefox]. If you run software without scanning them first you might as well ask for your computer to be compromised. --Marco 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think this is an important topic that should be addressed in the article. Such software in my experience is often banned from university networks (and this ban is heavily policed!), partly to stave off lawsuits in cases of copyright infringement but also on security grounds. The precise quote from one sysadmin stating this policy was, "If you use these programs under Windows you expose yourself to viruses and malware, thus jeopardizing our whole network. You may "by mistake" or on purpose download material that is not free, which can result in economical consequences for you, the Institute or the University." It's therefore necessary for the article to have a clear statement of what the risks are and how best to avoid them.

One particular clarification: you cite the SHA hashing as providing protection but of course this is only as good as the honesty of the original provider. If someone deliberately sets up a Torrent with a virus included in the original data, the SHA hashing will let this go through just fine, right? I would imagine this must be quite a risk, particularly with respect to those naughty, naughty people who specialise in hosting copyright-protected data they should not be sharing. -- WebDrake

You would imagine that, but try downloading and checking out stuff from common trackers for a while. But it's certainly possible. Also, a copy of the official client has been offered for download from an unofficial site with a malware wrapper around it. --24.2.110.92 16:44, 1 October 2005

Is it SHA? I thought it was MD5. In which case, it can be spoofed with collisions, but if it's SHA (especially SHA2), then things are okay. Could someone clarify this, maybe mention it in the article? --Sycomonkey 18:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bittorrent uses SHA-1. That is, the 160 bit (20 byte) SHA hashsum. (Not SHA-0 and not SHA-2 etc.) Although some minor vulnerabilities has been found recently in SHA-1 it should be strong enought for some time to come. And yes, it "only" guarantees that the file you get is the exact file(s) the torrent-file was made from. If the original torrent-file maker used bad files, you get the exact same bad files. But an outside attacker can not afterwards insert bad data into an existing torrent / swarm. --David Göthberg 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rephrasing Eitquette section

The etiquette section contains a few "strained" sentances. I would like to propose a rephrase of it, but first I would like to clear up some facts. The section currently says the following among other things:

"Additionally, this means that those who give back more data than they downloaded are hurting everyone else and since most torrents rely on users uploading more than they have downloaded to counteract users who logged off too early discouraging them from uploading is usually a bad idea."

This seems misleading at best, and incorrect at worst. Exactly how would one be 'hurting' anything by contributing more than one has downloaded? The only interpretation of the above I can think of, is that it is 'hurtful' with respect to attaining the 'perfect' swarm, as described before it. That is, if one is looking to distribute a file in a way that minimizes the overhead for all parties involved, everyone should share exactly as much as they have downloaded. One would be 'hurting' the perfection of the distribution process by contributing 'too much'. Is this what the author meant?

But beyond that I cannot see how it is correct in the general case. In practice, contributing to a swarm (in the general case) by seeding is never going to have any kind of negative impact on the average download speed of the swarm, regardless of whether other people are leechers or not. The above makes it sound like contributing more than 1:1 would be a bad thing even if everyone had the capability and will to contribute exactly 1:1.

It is incorrect. I can't even understand what the author of that passage is basing it on, but I'm sure it's not bittorrent.

Scode 13:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I'm not disputing that this article is pretty well-written or factually most likely correct, but from the way it is written it seems to only explain BitTorrent to an audience of people who have a pretty good idea of what BitTorrent is in the first place. Otherwise it is extremely confusing, and doesn't really provide a simply overview for other users:

"Downloading with BitTorrent is straightforward. Each person who wants to download the file first downloads the torrent and opens it in the BitTorrent client software. The torrent file tells the client the address of the tracker, which, in turn, maintains a log of which users are downloading the file and where the file and its fragments reside. For each available source, the client considers which blocks of the file are available and then requests the rarest block it does not yet have. This makes it more likely that peers will have blocks to exchange. As soon as the client finishes importing a block, it hashes it to make sure that the block matches what the torrent file said it should be. Then it begins looking for someone to upload the block to."

I think what is needed with this and many other technical (especially internet-related articles) is a simple overview section that non-technical people can understand. This is not a personal request - I'm a programmer and have little problem with this article, but I imagine most users would have no idea what BitTorrent actually is, and the steps required to use it: 1. Download the Application 2. Find a BitTorrent file to download (how?) 3. Open the file Understand the meaning of Seed, Peer. --Macgruder

BT Clients and software that use the BT protocol

These two should be split into two different sections. While some software might take advantage of the BT protocol, they are far from from actual clients.

Does anyone else have any thoughts? - Vernon

I quite agree. You can start with a copy of the BitTornado page, since they share a lot. I suggest the page BitTorrent (Client) or BitTorrent (Torrent Client). 67.171.74.109 05:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, look what I found: BitTorrent client - someone already created it. I'm going to change a few links that refer to the client to this page instead of the one about the protocol.

Hmm, I'm not sure I did this correctly. First the infobox doesn't work in it's new home. And I think I should be using (client) to disambig.

Well, I fixed the infobox. If the new page does get a new name the infobox templates I created should be deleted.

Etiquette - maths

Could someone explain why the 1.00 everywhere except the last two at 0.50 is "better" than an even spread of the share ratios (put another way, isn't this breaching NPOV)? That is to say, if you have a seed who uploads 1 full copy of the file and then retires, with n downloaders, then the n downloaders will download n copies of the file and upload n-1 copies, all told. You get (an average) share ratio of (n-1)/n, or 1 - 1/n each, which is definitely below 1.00, assuming no-one else seeds until necessary. (This also strikes me as being a far more intuitive way of approaching the maths required, and shows what I think is a counter-intuitive result: the more clients on the network, the more those clients need to upload.)

Your math looks more correct.

81.132.61.108 16:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That is because it is correct. Parts of the post above should be merged into the main article. I am thinking specifically about this part:

[...] if you have a seed who uploads 1 full copy of the file and then retires, with n downloaders, then the n downloaders will download n copies of the file and upload n-1 copies, all told. You get (an average) share ratio of (n-1)/n, or 1 - 1/n each, which is definitely below 1.00 [...]

That part is correct.

[...]assuming no-one else seeds until necessary[...]

But I do have objections. The average in this example is calculated for the n and is not affected by anyones additional seeding among the n. The individual ratio for the clients in the n swarm is though. If someone seeds indefinately (or because of asymmetrical upload speeds becomes an early seeder) and exceeds the average for the swarm, the average for the rest of the swarm (the peers minus the new seeds remaining) will sink. It will tend to approach zero if this process of recalculationg the average for the remainder of the swarm each time a new seed is created, unless the torrent continues indefinately, and unless the number of peers never decrease, something it will never ever do.

All in all, ratios are in my opinion an effort to use torrents as a permanent storage space, something it was never intended to do. Maintaining unrealistic share ratios is dubious at best and harmful to the swarm at worst. In my opinion the only realistic share ratio to monitor would be 0.5. Certainly not 1.0. And 0.5 would correspond to a torrent with one seed and two peers. The average among the peers would be 0.5 in this case. However, the two may have an individual share ratio different from 0.5 depending on upload/download speeds. The extreme case would be one client at 1.0 and the other at 0.0. I hope this expansion of this topic has enlightened the unenlightened few and got someone pumped up to correct the main page.

--Spinoza12 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And upon re-reading this part (etiquette) in the main article I must point out that the way it is currently written is simply incorrect, and not just incomplete as I initially thought. --Spinoza12 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

File Discussion

Does anybody know any discussion boards discussing a bunch of particular torrents?

OH... like pirate sites... anonymous comment... jeeze, go search google news.--x1987x 02:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

External Links- again

The external links section has gotten out of hand again. Again, Wikipedia is for information, not lists of links. We need to remove most of it. Per our previous discussion, I'm removing all the torrent search engines. For now, I've left the forums listed. Not sure how everyone feels about leaving these, but I'll leave it up for discussion. I'm also taking down the "Registration Sites" as they appear to be search engines that also provide reviews on the files.

I removed the most recently listed guide because it is a repeat of information already linked to. I also think the entire sections about "Technicial help and discussions", "Technical analyses", and "Legal" links should be removed, but I'll leave that up for discussion before I delete them. My reasoning comes from the Wikipedia rules on external links. coyote376 19:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy of list of clients

At List of BitTorrent clients we have a rather nice separated piece of data IMHO. Why don't we just get rid of the equivalent list in this page? --logixoul 17:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - but make sure all the information from this page is actually in the other page as well. List of BitTorrent clients really shouldn't exist at all - see bug 3744: Lists and comparisons. Brian Jason Drake 13:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening paragraph

Hi! A quick suggestion for an improvement to the intro. I suggested to somebody whose big media file is getting slammed that they offer a BitTorrent copy. They were afraid that it was like other p2p systems and that nobody would come to their site to read their intro before getting the file. The opening bit is great from a technical level, but I think it would be even better if it made clear that it's just a file transfer protocol, albeit one that's more scalable. --William Pietri 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the main article

Some sentences were vandalized and I don't know who to tell because I am new.

I reverted back to an earlier unvandalized version. I hope I fixed it and din't make it worse.