Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent shocking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge with BitTorrent. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The linked to article does not appear to relate to the article. No google results about "torrent shocking". Bittorrent is designed in such a way it is not possible to place different material in a torrent than that which it was originally supposed to contain, or at least there has been no reported cracks have occured. Appears to be designed as a scare-article. Mrjeff 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BitTorrent after signifcant clean up and shortening. Otherwise delete as unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Nick Y. --BrownHairedGirl 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with BitTorrent, but this needs a thermonuclear-grade cleanup before that: currently, this is just unsourced FUD and a neologism, too. Plus, P2P poisoning is hardly a new idea, and as the nom says, BT is a bit more resilient to that, due to a robust protocol and lack of centralised index... I'd be interested to see if anyone has researched BitTorrent's actual resilience against P2P poisoning, though, so as a part of BT article, this might have some value. Just rewrite it. Pretty much. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked quite hard to see if BT poisioning is possible. Doing it would involve first cracking SHA1, which while theoretically performed hasn't been practically done yet. If it was, quite a lot of other programs would be in trouble, for example most linux distributions use it to sign packages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs) .
- Ok, so it's hard. The topic is worth discussing; a lot of P2P apps have suffered from poisoning, it's worth exploring why BT isn't currently suffering from that (non-idiotic hash algorithms + someone actually maintains the indexes to flag/delete completely bogus torrents). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the bittorrent page should discuss this. "Torrent shocking" doesn't however appear to be on google at all (there are 109 results, but none of them seem to actually be about torrent shocking). Mrjeff 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so it's hard. The topic is worth discussing; a lot of P2P apps have suffered from poisoning, it's worth exploring why BT isn't currently suffering from that (non-idiotic hash algorithms + someone actually maintains the indexes to flag/delete completely bogus torrents). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked quite hard to see if BT poisioning is possible. Doing it would involve first cracking SHA1, which while theoretically performed hasn't been practically done yet. If it was, quite a lot of other programs would be in trouble, for example most linux distributions use it to sign packages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs) .
- Merge and redirect to BitTorrent. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.