From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Continuous deletions of relevant criticisms[edit]

Yo, Darthnader37?

  • This: "...the controversy surrounding the DHT feature actually helped popularize the client, the public seeing the DHT exploit merely as an error on the part of the developer..." is unsourced POV spam, and I think you're smart enough to know it. Yet you keep reincluding it.
  • I think you are well aware that the DHT and superseed/download issues are separate controversies. Why are you attempting to jam them together under the DHT heading (the one which has been resolved)?
  • I think you are equally well aware of the fact that John Hoffman meets Wikipedia criteria as a notable source, his quotation is pertinent to the topic, and especially since it regards an ongoing controversy and was issued in January 2007, meaning it's also timely.
  • You claimed I "removed no forum refs" in your revert comments -- when I clearly did in fact remove several forum posts referenced as sources:[1].
  • I don't appreciate your cut-n-pasted threats on my user-page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Darthnader37 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)" -- Pot, you are calling a kettle black. ...and why is it that whenever I see one of those things, I am the first person who actually has to post in Talk to "work toward concensus"?
  • Based on all this contributing evidence, I am finding it difficult to believe that your deletions are not being made in bad-faith.-- 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Threats"? I hardly think so. The template was just to tell you to start working on the talk page. Some IP's can be rather difficult, and I thought it was the most direct way to do it. And as for the found post removal, I did not see them in the history when I viewed it. [url][/url], and it was you who put them there in the first place, which made me assume bad faith, as spammers put forum postto backl up assumptions. And Hoffman is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Attribution, as he has a fringe opinion and no editorial oversight. He is no more trustworthy then any other fanatic, as I have seen no true proof to back up his claims. And the POV stuff you saw was from a published news source, slyck, which can be viewed as a reliable news source here on wikipedia. So nothing I did was in bad faith, it was merely in response to what I saw as another spammer initally. Darthnader37 05:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"...The template was just to tell you to start working on the talk page..." -- Try "See Talk" in the edit comments; that's what most people do.
" was you who put them there in the first place..." -- That is not true. (I may have reverted to an entry containing them, but I did not write them.)
"...And Hoffman is not a reliable source..." -- Hoffman is the author of a bittorrent client and the creator of super-seeding. Are you honestly maintaining that somebody could coin/create a term and a technology which has its own Wikipedia entry, but nevertheless not be a credible or noteworthy source on matters concerning it?
"...the POV stuff you saw was from a published news source..." -- It wasn't in quotation marks, (unlike the Hoffman quote I provided, which was sourced to a TorrentFreak article quoting him, and TorrentFreak is "published" on the web just like Slyck).
"...another spammer..." -- "Spammer" for what, exactly? (None of the bittorrent clients are payware.) Should others assume that you are a "spammer" for BitComet, and just trash your material willy-nilly under the same principle?-- 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed saying that Hoffman is not a reputable source when it comes to clients other then his own, as is evidenced by his ban. He also refused to let anyone converse with him on the subject. Did you see the locking of all of the announcements he made on his forum, or were you too busy listening to his "facts" about BitComet to notice? (With a topic like "why BitComet devs are stupid", how can he not be POV?) And as for the spammer assumption, there are a lot of IP's that vandalise and just put their own POV stuff on articles like this one (due to its controversy, from which has grown far more). I maintain this article in order to keep it fair and balanced, and none of this criticism has been from a reliable soure. I will fight to keep out any twisted or manufatured facts in this article (like those from Hoffman, who has no idea what he is talking about). Darthnader37 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your insinuation that Hoffman is not a reputable source on the subject of superseeding (and, by extension, how various clients behave toward it) is simply ludicrous, because he invented the technology. (And so what if he locks announcement threads -- people on forums planetwide lock their threads.) Given that you're attempting to argue with Hoffman over this, I think it's also safe to assume at this point that you're not an impartial observer. Of course, neither am I: I superseed torrents 24/7, and you may take my personal anecdote for whatever it's worth to you that watching BitComet in action makes me wanna go out and just murder people to death. I have about a thousand IP addresses in my blocklists, and over 90% of them are BitComet peers who got on my list through my personal observation of their client robbing my seed blind. Everybody anywhere who superseeds and isn't a rank n00b knows exactly what I'm talking about.-- 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article looks fine at the current revision to me. The creator of Super-seeding is about as direct and most noteworthy source on the issue that you can get. It doesn't seem the least bit biased in the way it is phrased either, since it clearly states that he is the author of another client (letting readers infer about his own possible personal bias on BitComet). --Dr. WTF 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He may be the most "noteworthy", but he's blindly overlooking the fact that the problem is actually caused by short-sightedness in his own seeding algorithm. The simple fact of the matter is that Hoffman's superseeding algorithm considers any client that connects to it as a new client, instead of going based on the percentage of the file that the connecting client claims to have. His assertions that BitComet is breaking protocol are false, as disconnecting from a client and reconnecting later are allowed. In fact, super-seeding is technically a breach of protocol, as in order to do it, a seeder must lie about how much of the file it has, and lie differently to each peer! I think the technical details of BitComet's alleged breaking of protocol should be described in more detail, as there's a lot of mindless reposting of the same rumours on many torrent sites("BitComet is a leech client", "BitComet lies about how fast it's uploading", "BitComet uploads faster to other BitComet users" etc.), none of which are true but simply cite each other as proof. -- 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I did some tests myself (of course I'm not adding my observations to the artivle). I did them because I found out I just cannot use non-BitComet client to download torrents that have high percentage of BitComet users in the swarm. Test1: Get a torrent where >90% peers use BitComet. Try downloading it for a day using non-BitComet client. Then try downloading it for a day using BitComet client. Repeat the test on the same machine several times and compare downloaded data size (you can also compare uploadede data size). Test2: Get a torrent where >90% peers use BitComet. Start the non-BitComet client and BitComet clients simultaneously. Observe their behavior towards each over. My own results were: In Test1 I got several times more data at the times when I was using BitComet. BitComet downloaded constantly while non-BitComet client downloaded episodically. In Test2 I had the following observations: suppose non-BitComet client has 50 Mb of data that BitComet client doesn't have and BitComet has 1Mb that non-BitComet needs. The clients connect to each other. BitComet manages to leech the 50Mb he needs while not even uploading the 1Mb that non-BitComet client needs. After BitComet finished leaching what it needed it quickly stopped uploading to the non-BitComet client even though the bandwidth was available. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC).


Writing with capitals and that you're unregistrated only shows your incompetence towards this topic. The article on ZeroPaid is a legit source, as it is written by a professional person not in the development of BitComet. Topolski is making a living working with network protocols, and he has lead a case against Comcast blocking BitTorrent traffic. He got cancer, and saw a chance of keeping his skills up to date doing research on BitComet, until the surgery luckily went well and he was cured.

In addition, here is his website so you can see that this isn't just some hoax: And finally, here is mr. topolski in action, leading the case against Comcast: The source is legit and trustworthy. XSTREM (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Freeware or adware?[edit]

Default layout of BitComet 0.86

I have just downloaded and installed BitComet version 0.86, and I was surprised to see an add for I made a screenshot of it, which may be used in the article. --CableCat 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: BitComet 0.84 is the last version without adds. --CableCat 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just downloaded 0.86 and can confirm the ads are there. In addition I noticed Google Toolbar is installed by default. I have updated the adware section. --Dr. WTF 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice clean up. --CableCat 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the article a little more neutral about adwere. --CableCat 08:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of your edit makes it look more biased to me. You removed all the version information in the adware section and also removed the citation. It makes it appear that all versions contain ads. I think that going into detail about the ads (such as stating some are removable) and which versions do and do not contain them makes it more NPOV. Also I think moving the ad section down to the Controversy & Criticsm section is rather biased. The ads are a feature of the client, not a criticism or controversy. The article doesn't critize the client for having them, it only stated which versions do and didn't. Other articles such as: Kazaa, Bearshare, and LimeWire, which have all been bundled with ads or malware at some time, do not have such information in controversy/criticism sections they either have it under a general version/history section or under its own section entirely. I'd prefer for the ad section to removed back to the features section but wouldn't mind making it a seprate section entirely. --Dr. WTF 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is criticism that the website states Bitcomet is free of adware. Whether or not a logo/splash-screen classify Bitcomet as adware seems irrelevant now. However I think it is a good idea to mention that the adds are from version 0.85 and above, and that Bitcomet started out as freeware. Just make you edits and I take a look at it :-) --CableCat 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I reworded it slightly in hopes to make it a little more clear. --Dr. WTF 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, I was hoping that you cleaned up my edit, since English is not my native language. --CableCat 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I think the image of the ad in 0.70 should be added back too. When you read that a piece of software contains an ad your mind can range from thinking it infests your computer with popups ads to it only containing a simple 100x100 'support us' banner. The screenshot of the ad in 0.70 clears up any possible misconceptions. I'm going to add that image back and wait for a response or two until I make additional changes that I have described above. --Dr. WTF 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All ads can be removed,search before you post.--Aqmaster 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BitComet is NOT an adware

The way this article is formed it means that bc is an adware that will infect the computer.Well no.The ads in the GUI can e removed and the ff plugin and gg toolbar can be unchecked in the installation of bitcomet(but believe me,you WANT the gg toolbar). So change the license to freeware for God's sake. --Aqmaster 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you define adware as "advertising-supported software" as the adware article does, then BitComet is adware. However I not sure either that that is the correct definition. Please go to the talk page of adware, and state your opinion. --CableCat 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded CometBird in 2006 and used it a lot while Opera or Firefox was getting sorted out. I found the uploading time a lot quicker and there wasn't any need for a forum or anything, although that did exist. As far as adware I found the add-ons not very convenient for the job so I guess I stayed linked to the router and plugging away[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Adware defination[edit]

I agree that listing BitComet as "adware" license is inaccurate. Even if wikipedia defines "adware" as any application that displays ads, Bitcomet's license still says it is Freeware, so what right do we have to change that?

Wikipedia lists many other software applications that display ads, and doesn't claim them to be adware, such as msn messenger, windows media player (last time I checked).

I suggest we label it correctly, and leave the comments that it is advertising supported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donb316 (talkcontribs).

I agree, whether or not we define BitComet as adware, its license is still freeware. --CableCat 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a stupid stance to take. BitComet's claims about itself do NOT take precedence over verifiable fact. If you take a look around the internet, you'll find some very clear examples of spyware and adware that bill themselves as "freeware". I'd also like to point out that the freeware article already states quite clearly that adware is ineligible for the title of "freeware". The short version is "BitComet is most likely lying to make itself look good".
Wikipedia needs to decide if being ad-supported is enough to qualify as adware, and then stick with that decision. Errors on the MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player pages do not combine to form an official policy.
I'm making an ugly Frankenstein edit. When this gets worked out you can clean it up to match the decision. Fdgfds (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
CableCat's point is that BitComet is adware, but that the "License" section should say freeware because Adware isn't technically its software license. I've changed it to "Ad-supported proprietary freeware", which I think is more descriptive, and follows the precedence set by other articles.--Theymos (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That was exactly my point, thank you --CableCat (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has changed it back to Adware license. This seems really childish and reflects poorly on wikipedia. BitComet is released under a proprietary freeware license, if someone feels that is inaccurate they can list that as a criticism but no one has the right to change their license type. In addition bitcomet hasn't had any ads in years, they tried adding commercial adds several years ago but now only promote other free products from the bitcomet team. If wikipedia is going to take it upon themselves to define the terms used and change the legal terms that the publisher uses they will lose all credibility. Donb316 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed the license type to Freeware. If anyone feels this is inaccurate I'd suggest adding a paragraph to the criticisms section and let the readers form their own opinion. Donb316 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


I would like to point out that for the first time (that I know of) we have some independent and professional testing regarding the claims against BitComet, but I have seen no one add this to the article.

The Truth About BitComet [3]

This seems a far better source for info then the developer of a competing client, or any other source I've seen quoted here.

Agreed. I found that paper on zeropaid while checking out alternative BT clients (uTorrent's been bought by BitTorrent inc. which has some users worried). Looks like Shad0w's criticism could be FUD, providing as it does no evidence, and being useful for promoting his own "super-seeding" innovation.Teaistheanswer (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The zeropaid article was in the article two revisions before yours, but I like the way you worded it better. BitComet definitely does abuse super-seeding, though, I've experienced it.--Theymos (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The only way you could confirm what you claim to have experienced is to have control of the bitcomet peer's computers. All major clients have 3rd party hacks and patches available that could cause them to be abusive to the testing done by Rob Topolski showed that Bitcomet did not take advantage of the optimistic unchoke because when it disconnects from the swarm it waits far too long before attempting to reconnect to a peer.Donb316 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Padding Files[edit]

From history: 04:43, 24 August 2007 Evilgohan2 (Talk | contribs) m (9,683 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Darthnader37; Although a forum post is not always a reputable source, it can be and in this case it is as reported by TorrentFreak:

I (funchords) rewrote this section to get to the core issues and to cut through the inaccurate hype. TorrentFreak's article did not sustain many of Fuzzier's contentions -- specifically not to the amount of padding "storming" (whatever that is), the amount of overhead, and the danger of the "exploit" he discovered. That said, some of Fuzzier's observations are accurate and -- presented dispassionately -- worth noting. Funchords 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (funchords)

I take exception to the characterization of padding files as "small". Certainly, everything is relative, but I have a padding file right now that is 522897 bytes in size. Am I correct in assuming that a file that big could potentially be created for every file in a multifile torrent? That would be insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. While each padding file is "small" (though I'm currently looking at a 1016 kB one), they add up in multi-file torrents. The one I'm looking at has about 20MB of BitComet padding in total. - Alltat (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The advantage to padding files is understated in this article. They can indeed help all other clients when a torrent is poorly seeded or unseeded, in this case the bitcomet peer can download the files from other torrents with some or all of the same content, or download the files from http/ftp or ed2k sources and become a seeder and in turn revive a dead or dying torrent. This technology is very swarm friendly and other clients could have coded their programs to ignore the padding files or incorporate the technology themselves, however I can certainly understand why they would be annoying to someone using another client that didn't understand their purpose and in most cases doesn't benefit from them.

Without the padding files bitcomet can still download the files from other sources but in many cases will be missing boarder pieces so instead of becoming a seeder on a dead torrent they will become a peer with 99.x%. There is some brief mention of the benefits of padding files in the article but it makes no mention of how it could benefit non-bitcomet peers. Donb316 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

BitComet & Apphit vs FileHippo[edit]

It's shameful for BitComet to do this. I really liked BitComet and when I found (via website) I really liked that too. Then I found and realised both looked and operated practically identical.

Internet Archives proof that was first... with history going back to 2005. only started appearing in 2008.*/*/

I used a whois and you can clearly see that both and are affiliated with each other, same registar and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BitComet exploiting superseeding[edit]

BitComet exploits superseeding by disconnecting and connecting again as soon as it has got a piece from a superseed. Since BitLord is based on BitComet it probably does it too. I think this is quite important and should be added to the article. (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been debunked by the Rob Topolski paper and even if it was true both bitcomet and bitlord predated superseeding and it was the author's responsibility to determine how superseeding interacted with existing clients, but that's a moot point because when disconnecting the bitcomet peer waits far too long to reconnect for it to be of any advantage, in fact it would be a disadvantage. Donb316 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

BitComet's connected to BitTornado!!!![edit]

The name says it all. I saw the list of peers with their p2p clients and I saw BitTornado ON my BitComet window!!!!

I've already took a snapshot of the evidence. Can't upload the snapshot though, because I'm not a Wiki member.

Here's the list of trackers I was on:

And here's the infohash of the torrent I was running: cb81c4e7b1e67bb870e1af952dccf84201073753

Just type the hash into google and you'll find that torrent. 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not unusual, sine shadow only banned BitComet in the most recent iteration of his client. Anything before that does not have teh ban hard coded in, and I am sure that the users do not care. Therefore, you should see 3.17 and before version connected.

Darthnader37 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IP and hash reporting[edit]

The anon, who's pretty much only edits concern this article [4], believes the section on IP and hash reporting should not be included in the article. The information is very well sourced, it is neither a rant from one person nor is it irrelevant. Actually, it's probably the most relevant information in the entire article.

If the anon has a vested personal interest in BitComet (and it appears he has [5]), that is his problem. That section was written to conform directly to NPOV. The anon should take a look at WP:NPOV, specifically this section.

Just because you don't like the section, does not mean it should not be there. We are not here to please you or your interests. -- Xompanthy (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to cover the silly argument that the sources are not "valid", here's a direct quote from here:

An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may , exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.

Since this field is not well covered by print sources, experts do traditionally publish online, the forums are moderated and the material has been (unsuccessfully) challenged, the sources are completely valid. -- Xompanthy (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording so that it sounds less accusatory, and removed the privacy policy bit. The forum source isn't an expert on the privacy policy, so we'd need a different, more reputable source to include something like that. The policy might only cover the website; I'm not sure, which is why we need an expert source. Otherwise, the sources seem fine to me. They are clearly reputable in this specific matter. --Theymos (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, your version is fine. I think the privacy policy info is probably the most important, but I would agree the source is probably not an expert on it. Consensus reached :). -- Xompanthy (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

XSTREM (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2007 (GMT+1) This feature can easily be disabled. I've included a screenshot of this too bytheway.

According to the sources cited, that doesn't disable it. From source #2: "'check for updates' and 'Submit task statistical info to help us improve service quality' were turned off". From source #1,: "No, unfortunatly not. You can't disable it."--Theymos (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

XSTREM (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (GMT+1)

We just recently discovered this bug in the tech-staff. After a lot of fuss, I decided to test this myself. I can't believe nobody reported this in the Bug Report forum with a detailed analysis a long time ago. (That's what it's there for.) It was reported once, but not with any technical details, and that makes it hard for the developers to nail the bug. The developers are looking into the case and will fix it as soon as possible. Source for more information:

- There was no reason to remove the screenshot though.

Well, when you fix the bug and update the program, then you can edit the article so it says it can be disabled. Until then, this version should remain.
Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your comment. -- Xompanthy (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I replaced source #2 with your forum link. The post is more professional-sounding, it includes technical data, and an Admin responds.
The screenshot was unnecessary. Everyone knows what an options window looks like, so they'll know what we're talking about in the text without a picture. I wouldn't object to a note about how that setting doesn't stop BitComet from reporting information, though I think that section would sound cluttered if we included any more information.--Theymos (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The screenshot was not unnecessary. If you read the screenshot, it was an information regarding the statstical reporting. XSTREM (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention statistical reporting at all, so why should we have a picture highlighting it?--Theymos (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Statistical reporting is hash reporting. If the feature is enabled, BitComet will report statistical informations to improve the client. But if the feature is disabled BitComet shouldn't send those informations to the server - though BitComet do send the hashtables anyway due to the "comments" and "screenshots" features. The developers will fix this issue as specified. XSTREM (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That isn't a picture of hash reporting. It is a picture of an option which stops BitComet from reporting statistical information. The hashes reported with the comment system are not statistical information. There is no option to turn off hash reporting completely, which is the cause of controversy. The option doesn't exist, so you can't make an image of it. Since the section is about hash reporting, and the image is not about hash reporting, and there isn't a section that is about the focus of the image(statistical reporting), the image is unnecessary in this article.--Theymos (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is fixed in the latest version (V. 0.99). Should this category be deleted? It's a fixed bug - if we should list all bugs in all programs, the list would be huge. XSTREM (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep it for a while. It was kind of a major issue. Is the behavior enabled by default? If so, please change "is able to report" to something like "reports, by default" or re-write it to say "when the stat tracking[etc] features are optionally used, hash values are necessarily reported".
Please cite the fix as soon as possible. The release notes seem to not have this fix included.--Theymos (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, the release notes does not have this fix included for one reason or another. I recorded the outbound connections using WireShark, and BitComet does not connect to any servers if all options are disabled, as it did in the earlier versions. I think it's a mistake made by the individual that has written this log. However, it does say "GUI Improved: new option in advanced setting page: query task comment and snapshot info automatically" Disabling these two new options seize all contact to BitComet servers. The hash reporting is enabled by default. XSTREM (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We're going to need a third-party source for this. Maybe you can convince an Admin to make a statement on the official forums.--Theymos (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. There is now an official statement on the forums. [6] XSTREM (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Inspection by me has showed that there is even more information send to the BitComet servers now, still in clear violation of their Privacy Policy. The bugfix made the previous instance of 'dailing-home' optional through a specific setting. But two new methods have been implemented which remain unaffected. Sadly as the only one detecting this so far and without proper scrutiny from third (or first) party people I dare not update this article as I fear it would violate NPOV guidelines. However I do feel this is important and hope regular editors of this article will keep an eye on the related topic on the BitComet forum and will be able to ascertain when it is within guidelines to add this information to the section. Related topic: BitComet Client Bug Report --Lord Alderaan (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right Alderaan, if you included this info in Wikipedia, it would be against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. But since I neither conducted the research nor am I personally involved in this matter, I can include it into the article... and will do just that. XSTREM, please refrain from editing that section, as you are both personally involved in this matter and with the BitComet dev team. On the BitComet forums, you declare yourself as the "Unofficial Bitcomet ambassador". This, along with further proof from you contributions list ([7]) most definitely shows that you are in violation of both WP:SOAP and have difficulty abiding by WP:NPOV.

Please, I am not trying to be difficult, but you seem to lack the understanding of why Wikipedia is here. It is not here to promote BitComet, or defend it. It is here to provide a neutral and accurate portrayal of facts backed by verifiable sources. Again, please refrain from editing that section (and better yet, the entire article). If you feel changes have to be made, discuss your grievances on this talk page, and other editors will do their best to help. -- Xompanthy (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Xompanthy. I am however not involved in the BitComet staff. The "unofficial BitComet ambassador" is a custom-title, not given to me by any of the staff. If the staff wants me to remove that title, I'll do it of course. I'm no more involved with the BitComet development than you are in the development of the competing client µTorrent or BitTornado. I'm a member on the BitComet forums, yes, I'm helping users out with their problems they might have with BitComet. I am however a critic, as you might've noticed in some of my older posts. If BitComet is having bugs, I'll report them here on Wikipedia and on the forums. I am not trying to cover over any misbehaving issues in BitComet. I even investigated the issue when BitComet pages were defaced by hackers and there were malware on the site, and I've investigated the new reporting on the forums as well. In that thread, you can read I have no intentions of making propaganda or cover over any bugs. I've questioned the developers for their lack of response.

I'm a µTorrent user as well, but I'm having most experience with BitComet. That does not give me any less privilegies to edit this article than you do. I'm not here to defend BitComet. If I see misinformations I'll edit them of course and keep this article up to date. XSTREM (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You must understand my position. All I see in your contributions are edits to this article, and those edits are usually favorable towards BitComet. You are it's biggest advocate on this talk page, are active on it's forums, and are personally involved in this case on those forums... so you can understand that some concerns will be raised about your neutrality. In any event, please discuss all major changes to the article on this talk page first. I believe the section on hash reporting is now both up to date and neutral. If you think otherwise, please discuss it first before changing it. -- Xompanthy (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You might see my edits as if I'm favorable towards BitComet. That is not my intentions to be that. My intentions are to bring out the real truths and not the rumours. Should Wikipedia consists of facts - or rumours? Well, I learn towards the facts as I want Wikipedia to be a good and trustworthy source of informations. My neutrality can be discussed, yes, I'm however being impartial and I see the case from both sides before concluding. I agree with you that the Hash Reporting section is up to date and neutral, as it describes the situation as it is right now. XSTREM (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It says in the article: "The program's privacy policy has also been removed from the site following the discovery of the bug" That isn't true, the Wiki page has just been moved to a blog page instead.

The Software Privacy Policy has been updated by the way. XSTREM (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I have updated the section to mention the updated privacy policy. -- Xompanthy (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The most recent posts in Source #7, between LordAlderaan and XSTREM can not be used as sources. The only posts on that forum which should be used are posts by the forum Administrator. Otherwise, forum posts are not allowed. Therefore, we will need to remove the last two sentences of the hash reporting section if replacement sources are not found.--Theymos (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no replacement sources were found, I have removed the info from the unreliable source. The only info we can conclude from source #7 is that the features exist and that they do report info to Since the source is not clear on whether the features can be disabled, we shouldn't include anything about that.--Theymos (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the forum posts can't be used as reliable sources, if they're not written by an official administrator or developer. In the BitComet interface, however, the features can be disabled, but as you, I haven't been able to find a 3rd party site for good cites. We must keep an eye on it.XSTREM (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sadly I have to agree with Theymos. I'm no established expert. Besides I'm using an alias and that I helped point out the previous (confirmed and fixed) bug doesn't count for anything either. So until an admin confirms this bug or an established expert looks into it the correct information can't be added to the wiki page. I know a researcher at that might be interested but I doubt they really gonna look into it, let alone write up an article about it. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes in deed. I hope they'll do an analysis of this to clearify. I know by fact that BitComet does send hash-data (regardless of "statistical reporting" is set to off) to a BitComet tracker - but that is used for the feature called "Long Time Seeding" which is a closed network by BitComet for finding additional peers and WebSeeds. The English BitComet forum is on going a forum-platform shift, but I can ask for a deeper explanation if it is needed by an official developer. However, it can only be visible on the official Chinese boards, which will require the Chinese letters. I'll do that later. Theymos; why did you specify your removal as: "Removed the info from an unreliable source" when the source is the same as source #7 that is being used now? I've added "verification needed" to the source, since the current source is down and won't be available anymore due to the forum shift. By the way, if there is any questions, I will personally forward them to the official Chinese developers through the Chinese boards. It's best to make a list of questions before sending. If the member you know on Torrentfreak accepts the analysis, then it would be a good thing to make space for official developer comments before releasing the article. Contact me if it is needed. It's always best to see the case from two sides. XSTREM (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Adware change[edit]

BitComet is no longer adware because it doesn't automatically display advertising. Before version 0.98, it did. It does display advertising in the web-based sections, but that is built into the HTML webpage the search page is at, not BitComet itself.

Just because it points at the ad page does not make it adware. Firefox's default search engine has ads, and Mozilla gets ad revenue from those ads, but Firefox is not Adware. This situation is similar.

I've made changes to the article accordingly. If someone could find one or two non-forum sources about this advertising change, that would be great.--Theymos (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

castiboy (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) i would just like to point out the fact that since version 1.0 was released (if i remember well), the client automatically displays pop-up adverts for movies in a similar way to MSN/WLM's "toast" notifications. but unlike MSN "toasts", these do not disappear after a few seconds, forcing you to go down there and close them manually... it's really annoying and i couldn't find any options to turn these off. IMHO, this deserves being mentioned somewhere in the article.

We need sources to include stuff in the article. I've added a [verification needed] to the adware section, though, since that source is broken and a forum source isn't particularly reliable anyway.--Theymos (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources were reliable because they were written statements from the BitComet staff members themselves on their own forums. Sadly the removal of their old forums has removed a lot of sources in the whole article. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Image[edit]

What value does the image add of this program at the top of the article? It's far too small to make anything out but a generic program window running in Windows Vista. It wasn't even reduced correctly, the Moiré is visible and what appears to be text is rainbow colored because improper resizing blurred the clear-typed text. Would a slightly larger screenshot of the program, say 600px wide qualify as fair use?

At minimum the image needs cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)