What point is there downloading the miner that is not what you are promoting and wanting everyone to run?
That's the old open source version.
My factual comments are about your current closed source miner that you bandy to S17 and above.
Just because you ignored the
open Stratum V2 implementation doesn't mean its a "hack". Its properly implemented you know, you could have added it if you wanted, but you deliberately chose not to, its your own fault.
Why wouldn't anyone ignore it? The majority of it is basically Luke's GBT that died and no one implemented a transaction selection for.
WAY too much data.
Needs a
WAY too fast computer to run each miner to implement transaction selection.
But it wasn't implemented for the blatantly simple reason that it creates bias in Bitcoin.
Transaction selection should be based on available transactions, not some biased view about which transactions should and shouldn't be allowed.
You clearly misunderstand the point of Bitcoin.
What, are you also going to call clean implementations from zero a hack too? So what if its inspired in cgminer, there is no GPL violation as
Con Kolivas was clearly happy with bosminer. So, what are you here for exactly? Are you still trusting baseless (and idiotic) rumors? Still going to bring something from 2015 that has nothing whatsoever to do with Braiins OS?
Um - what's all this crap you stated here?
To avoid commenting on or replying to what I actually asked? ...
Who cares what *you think* happened with the pool back then, it was solved and yet you keep bringing that up. Giving how easy you fall for others baseless rumors and lies I'm not surprised anymore.
It's what did happen on multiple occasions - here's 3:
Firstly quoted from your web site:
"Braiins has been the sole operator of the pool since taking a majority stake in 2013."
So all the below are you.
1) Dec 2015 - during that month, miners on your pool posted issues with the luck
during the month.
Your support said there were no problems.
After that month I did a valid and correct statistical analysis of the slush blocks for the month:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13482822This
CLEARLY shows there were problems that slush allowed, in it's negligence, to continue well past the point of obvious detection.
This also
CLEARLY shows that either 1) for the first 5 years you and slush ran the pool, you had no useful statistical analysis of the pool to handle accidental (or purposeful) block withholding OR 2) you didn't bother to take note of any of that analysis that would have identified the problem around half way or less through the month.
Your pool result: all miners lost well over 10% of their earnings for that whole month - more than 350 BTC
Your comment: 'problem is fixed' - implying quite clearly: bad luck, you lose, due to slush negligence.
Followup, it was almost certainly organofcorti who told you how to do the so called 'proof' you now supply about your pool hash rate.
Alas, you ignore the fact that it is not a proof of hash rate, it is a proof of a lower limit on the hash rate,
which for a PPLNS pool is quite a problematic claim.
Of interest to also note that organofcorti pointed out a method that would have identified the above problem on the first day of the month.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13892442I wonder if you do this every single day to mitigate such losses for your miners
2) Jul 2018 - two related events:
Slush: 5 blocks diff% 1117%, 127%, 237%, 119%, 509% - a one in 717839 blocks event.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.41534985The year before, my pool had it's worst ever bad diff run, that no matter how I organised the 5 blocks, it wasn't as bad as the slush luck.
My response was to code a 2nd original share and block test, and reprocess and re-verify the 3 months worth of shares around the event.
Reported all this during and after the event and the results, suggesting it was either very bad luck or FuckHash mining data that was the largest hash rate on the pool at the time. PPLNS hasn't allowed rentals ever since due to the risk issues with rentals.
Meanwhile Slush Official's response to their bad luck above:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.41904145"Bad luck happens"
3) However,
during that 5 block ridiculous bad luck run, there was a new miner on slush pool with 400PH which equated to about 2 blocks a day at the time.
They had no blocks in the "Hall of Fame" for that period nor the week after it.
Slush Official's response to the above:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.43143004"Hall of Fame is rather "for fun" statistics"
This seems a rather major issue to claim this on a PPLNS pool where reward is determined by blocks found.
This relates directly to the fact that slush's "proof of hashrate" is not exactly that, it is a proof of a lower limit.
A higher hash rate can easily be hidden by using a different coinbase and thus it not showing up in the proof.
Worse, when a miner that is indeed failing to find blocks, it will mean that the pool 'proof' will indeed show this lower limit.
4
Then of course there's the blatant lie you continue to advertise on your home web page claiming you were the first mining pool, even though you clearly know it is false, and even slush himself knew it since he was involved in the thread where he pointed out when he started slush pool that there was already another (in the same thread).
Fact is Slush Pool has 11EH while kanopool has 5PH. You can now only find one or two blocks in a year and Slush Pool is getting many in a day. Are you jealous or something? Blame your own attitude.
Where exactly did I say this?
All you've done is run your mouth to avoid some of the questions I asked.
But this has nothing to do with Braiins OS does it? So what is the purpose of this message, like the one you did in December? Playing the FUD game now instead of actually coding?
You owe an apology to the community. You tried to spread a lie as truth (again), even after being shown facts.
Where is the lie?
Seriously - point it out.
You still owe over 350BTC to the slush mining community Dec 2015 for your negligence in one incident above
To each these ideas, when they criticize me, I check the accuracy, and if this is true, I question myself! but yeah ... I also get criticized for "hacking" or not respecting the GPL ... even though my mod (modest) is like opensource, because I don't modify the cgminer code, I only call a existing function !!! and he doesn't even bother to download (free) and check ... but keep criticizing ...
unfortunately that's not how the world has moved forward... there are more or less rotten developers, but I respect them all! Kano including
Pretending ignorance doesn't allow to you ignore the license.
You distribute a full firmware.
Thus you distribute cgminer in your firmware.
This requires, according to the GPLv3 License, for you to provide the source upon request.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]