CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 909.

theotherme

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 10

Quote from: chup on October 07, 2015, 06:08:05 AM

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 07, 2015, 01:25:31 AM

Yup, actually went and looked it up... You can charge for it, whether it's private or open. So CCminer could easily add a fee to it and it wouldn't violate a GNU license as long as a source is included (which goes for private and public versions, private miners are required to provide source if they're built off of any GNU licensed material). DJM was spouting BS and I followed along with it without reading through the entire license agreement (my bad for believing DJM knew what he was talking about).

So there is no problem with adding a fee to CCminer, it doesn't violate a GNU license. So by all means SP, fee away dude.

Helpful link: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Great. Going step by step to the point. The point is that GPL license was created by very bright people, clever enough not to prohibit something that can not be enforced: distribution of binaries over private channels without source code. You can assume that I'm asking djm34: "Hay djm, please look at this source code, please compile and make it faster for me, I will pay You 10BTC.

you got a deal Grin

actually the article says clearly than in case of public distribution of the binaries the code has to be given on request... (hence our concerns)

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

Quote from: chup on October 07, 2015, 06:08:05 AM

Great. Going step by step to the point. The point is that GPL license was created by very bright people, clever enough not to prohibit something that can not be enforced: distribution of binaries over private channels without source code. You can assume that I'm asking djm34: "Hay djm, please look at this source code, please compile and make it faster for me, I will pay You 10BTC. I don't need source code and I will not publish binaries, because I know that I will have to publish source code too, that costs 100BTC to buy it from You. Thank You." No license break.

The GPL is older than a lot of people in this forum.

chup

sr. member

Activity: 737

Merit: 262

Me, Myself & I

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 07, 2015, 01:25:31 AM

Yup, actually went and looked it up... You can charge for it, whether it's private or open. So CCminer could easily add a fee to it and it wouldn't violate a GNU license as long as a source is included (which goes for private and public versions, private miners are required to provide source if they're built off of any GNU licensed material). DJM was spouting BS and I followed along with it without reading through the entire license agreement (my bad for believing DJM knew what he was talking about).

So there is no problem with adding a fee to CCminer, it doesn't violate a GNU license. So by all means SP, fee away dude.

Helpful link: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Great. Going step by step to the point. The point is that GPL license was created by very bright people, clever enough not to prohibit something that can not be enforced: distribution of binaries over private channels without source code. You can assume that I'm asking djm34: "Hay djm, please look at this source code, please compile and make it faster for me, I will pay You 10BTC. I don't need source code and I will not publish binaries, because I know that I will have to publish source code too, that costs 100BTC to buy it from You. Thank You." No license break.

theotherme

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 10

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 07, 2015, 01:25:31 AM

Quote from: chup on October 06, 2015, 01:37:56 AM

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 05, 2015, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: chup on October 03, 2015, 03:35:57 AM

Before continuing Your accusations, please provide GPL license text that is violated when sending binaries over private channels. You can assume that user is asking and paying developer to make better code for him from open source code. Can You make citation from GPL license that is broken with this?

Oh yeah? He's making better open source code, so he can then open source it? Using a loophole doesn't make it right. You're not supposed to be able to profit off other persons open work without their permission, that's the way it works. Just because you do it in private doesn't mean you aren't violating it. It's like doing something illegal profit still makes it illegal even if you more then likely wont get caught.

Your freewill understanding of GPL license doesn't count at all. If You can not provide citation of GPL license that is broken with before mentioned case than You should stop Your false accusations.

DJM was spouting BS and I followed along with it without reading through the entire license agreement (my bad for believing DJM knew what he was talking about).

Don't project your own behavior on others Grin

Can you tell me how long would stay a fee in an open-source code ? (hence the reason why it needs to be closed source... and most likely crypted... hence might violate licence agreements... I guess I will probably have to explain you this over the next 2 or 3 months... Roll Eyes

)

ps: If I spout BS this is as an amateur, you clearly have the world record... (and don't worry, your record is safe, I have no intention to become pro and compete with you... not that there is any chance to beat you...)

edit: the article is interesting though...

bensam1231

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1024

Quote from: chup on October 06, 2015, 01:37:56 AM

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 05, 2015, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: chup on October 03, 2015, 03:35:57 AM

Before continuing Your accusations, please provide GPL license text that is violated when sending binaries over private channels. You can assume that user is asking and paying developer to make better code for him from open source code. Can You make citation from GPL license that is broken with this?

Oh yeah? He's making better open source code, so he can then open source it? Using a loophole doesn't make it right. You're not supposed to be able to profit off other persons open work without their permission, that's the way it works. Just because you do it in private doesn't mean you aren't violating it. It's like doing something illegal profit still makes it illegal even if you more then likely wont get caught.

Your freewill understanding of GPL license doesn't count at all. If You can not provide citation of GPL license that is broken with before mentioned case than You should stop Your false accusations.

Yup, actually went and looked it up... You can charge for it, whether it's private or open. So CCminer could easily add a fee to it and it wouldn't violate a GNU license as long as a source is included (which goes for private and public versions, private miners are required to provide source if they're built off of any GNU licensed material). DJM was spouting BS and I followed along with it without reading through the entire license agreement (my bad for believing DJM knew what he was talking about).

So there is no problem with adding a fee to CCminer, it doesn't violate a GNU license. So by all means SP, fee away dude.

Helpful link: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

hashbrown9000

sr. member

Activity: 427

Merit: 250

all my 750ti cards are BIOS unlocked to 64 watts instead of the stock 38 watts. still no problems with power or risers burning up.

nhutphan

member

Activity: 108

Merit: 10

Quote from: scryptr on October 06, 2015, 12:42:16 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 12:12:28 PM

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 11:52:36 AM

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

Agreed. But since everybody is mining the wellknown algos, there are small blockchains out there that can be mined with a good profit with little hardware. 1 year ago we had several multipools wich dumped all the coin they generated for BTC. With most of the multipools gone, there are some possibilities for the satoshi hunters

That is the main reason why I have ROI well below a year; mining coins under the radar of multipools and plug&play miners. You should have just put a couple of cards solomining it so its market could absorb your selloff long term. Now it will probably get dumped though.

JOINCOIN--

I can't find a wallet for JoinCoin. It is off the web, unless you compile it. Windows only! --scryptr

Joincoin wallet

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737405.640

djm34

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1050

Quote from: scryptr on October 06, 2015, 12:42:16 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 12:12:28 PM

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 11:52:36 AM

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

Agreed. But since everybody is mining the wellknown algos, there are small blockchains out there that can be mined with a good profit with little hardware. 1 year ago we had several multipools wich dumped all the coin they generated for BTC. With most of the multipools gone, there are some possibilities for the satoshi hunters

That is the main reason why I have ROI well below a year; mining coins under the radar of multipools and plug&play miners. You should have just put a couple of cards solomining it so its market could absorb your selloff long term. Now it will probably get dumped though.

JOINCOIN--

I can't find a wallet for JoinCoin. It is off the web, unless you compile it. Windows only! --scryptr

probably a lot safer considering that wallet with virus are getting very common lately...

scryptr

legendary

Activity: 1797

Merit: 1028

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 12:12:28 PM

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 11:52:36 AM

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

Agreed. But since everybody is mining the wellknown algos, there are small blockchains out there that can be mined with a good profit with little hardware. 1 year ago we had several multipools wich dumped all the coin they generated for BTC. With most of the multipools gone, there are some possibilities for the satoshi hunters

That is the main reason why I have ROI well below a year; mining coins under the radar of multipools and plug&play miners. You should have just put a couple of cards solomining it so its market could absorb your selloff long term. Now it will probably get dumped though.

JOINCOIN--

I can't find a wallet for JoinCoin. It is off the web, unless you compile it. Windows only! --scryptr

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 11:52:36 AM

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

Agreed. But since everybody is mining the wellknown algos, there are small blockchains out there that can be mined with a good profit with little hardware. 1 year ago we had several multipools wich dumped all the coin they generated for BTC. With most of the multipools gone, there are some possibilities for the satoshi hunters

That is the main reason why I have ROI well below a year; mining coins under the radar of multipools and plug&play miners. You should have just put a couple of cards solomining it so its market could absorb your selloff long term. Now it will probably get dumped though.

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 06, 2015, 11:52:36 AM

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

Agreed. But since everybody is mining the wellknown algos, there are small blockchains out there that can be mined with a good profit with little hardware. 1 year ago we had several multipools wich dumped all the coin they generated for BTC. With most of the multipools gone, there are some possibilities for the satoshi hunters

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 11:15:02 AM

Quote from: djm34 on October 06, 2015, 11:11:19 AM

probably got broken when Vanilla was released... not a big deal to fix though...
(most likely not using the correct constant... or something like that...)
btw: whirlcoin is kinda dead (was never alive actually...)

yes, but the algo is being used in other coins. Joincoin is one of them.

With one rig of 6 750ti's you will have half of the global net hashrate of joincoin-whirlpool

Joincoin is $0.06 a piece and 9600 coins are generated every day. (576$)

I wouldn't go ham on that one, 1.07 BTC could dump the price to 30 satoshis because that's all the buy support that exists for that coin (https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-J).

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: djm34 on October 06, 2015, 11:11:19 AM

probably got broken when Vanilla was released... not a big deal to fix though...
(most likely not using the correct constant... or something like that...)
btw: whirlcoin is kinda dead (was never alive actually...)

yes, but the algo is being used in other coins. Joincoin is one of them.

With one rig of 6 750ti's you will have half of the global net hashrate of joincoin-whirlpool

Joincoin is $0.06 a piece and 9600 coins are generated every day. (576$)

djm34

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1050

Quote from: sp_ on October 06, 2015, 10:52:05 AM

I am working on an optimized whirlcoin miner. But the old DJM-34 miner doesn't seem to work on the pool.

ccminer -a whirlcoin -o stratum+tcp://stratum.coinspool.cu.cc:3048 -u -p x

lots of low difficulty shares.

Anybody know how to set the --diff parameter?

Perhaps the pool is broken

probably got broken when Vanilla was released... not a big deal to fix though...
(most likely not using the correct constant... or something like that...)

btw: whirlcoin is kinda dead (was never alive actually...)

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I have added it now to github. The Whirlcoin algo is doing over 15MHASH on the 970 with overclocking. (run with -a whirl)
Does somebody have the time to solomine joincoin - whirlpool

The diff is really low at around 8.

Should do around 15MHASH on the 970 oc.

1 year ago the whirlpool algo was doing less on the gtx 980: (Hashrates before the sp-mod project)

My modded code will turn your 970 card into a 980 when mining whirlpool

And here is DJM-34's original version

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I am working on an optimized whirlcoin miner. But the old DJM-34 miner doesn't seem to work on the pool.

ccminer -a whirlcoin -o stratum+tcp://stratum.coinspool.cu.cc:3048 -u -p x

lots of low difficulty shares.

Anybody know how to set the --diff parameter?

Perhaps the pool is broken

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: Slava_K on October 06, 2015, 07:52:53 AM

SP_ - Lyra2REv2 - on my rig lost 1MH! on last commit... (2x980+960)

Clean the project,get all the latest files and rebuild.

Slava_K

hero member

Activity: 677

Merit: 500

SP_ - Lyra2REv2 - on my rig lost 1MH! on last commit... (2x980+960)

theotherme

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 10

Quote from: chup on October 06, 2015, 01:37:56 AM

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 05, 2015, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: chup on October 03, 2015, 03:35:57 AM

Before continuing Your accusations, please provide GPL license text that is violated when sending binaries over private channels. You can assume that user is asking and paying developer to make better code for him from open source code. Can You make citation from GPL license that is broken with this?

Oh yeah? He's making better open source code, so he can then open source it? Using a loophole doesn't make it right. You're not supposed to be able to profit off other persons open work without their permission, that's the way it works. Just because you do it in private doesn't mean you aren't violating it. It's like doing something illegal profit still makes it illegal even if you more then likely wont get caught.

Your freewill understanding of GPL license doesn't count at all. If You can not provide citation of GPL license that is broken with before mentioned case than You should stop Your false accusations.

Once you have understood, that bensam is always right no matter how wrong he is, you start to react a lot less... Grin

chup

sr. member

Activity: 737

Merit: 262

Me, Myself & I

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 05, 2015, 06:44:06 PM

Quote from: chup on October 03, 2015, 03:35:57 AM

Before continuing Your accusations, please provide GPL license text that is violated when sending binaries over private channels. You can assume that user is asking and paying developer to make better code for him from open source code. Can You make citation from GPL license that is broken with this?

Oh yeah? He's making better open source code, so he can then open source it? Using a loophole doesn't make it right. You're not supposed to be able to profit off other persons open work without their permission, that's the way it works. Just because you do it in private doesn't mean you aren't violating it. It's like doing something illegal profit still makes it illegal even if you more then likely wont get caught.

Your freewill understanding of GPL license doesn't count at all. If You can not provide citation of GPL license that is broken with before mentioned case than You should stop Your false accusations.

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 909. (Read 2347659 times)