Topic: Here is how to compensate bitstream developers (Read 2889 times)
wft? just release it as opensource, keep the code clean and the bad karma away
Donation sent, CGMiner rocks!
Thanks! Donations rock! There are already arguments upthread explaining why it's not a good idea and fallback procedures for DDoS attacks, etc.
Read above, I edited my post to explain why I think he will be unable to defend against DDoS attacks.
I'm sure he'd be willing to make a version especially for you that donates 20%...
And now you are losing sight of my main argument: I am against the complexity of this centralized infrastructure that will get attacked, will get DDoS'd, where we will all lose due to this downtime (eldentyrell and customers).
I am only willing to reward him more if he would distibute his bitstream the way I described.
True, true. Just another infrastructure where someone gets to pay for the incurred overhead and any loss due to service interruption.
If there was a reasonable level of confidence that compensation in the form of a bounty was feasible that would have been the best way to go about it. But to take devil's advocate position considering that very little has been donated as compensation for open source contributions, e.g. cgminer, maybe ET had no confidence in a fixed bounty.
With mining profitability being a variable affair we'll never know how much ET will make off of this. But it would have been nice to phathom ET's true compensation expectations with a fixed bounty. If the latter had occurred we would have had firm ground to debate whether ET's bitstream is community contribution or community profiteering.
There are already arguments upthread explaining why it's not a good idea and fallback procedures for DDoS attacks, etc.
I'm sure he'd be willing to make a version especially for you that donates 20%...
You are losing sight of my main argument: I am against the complexity of this centralized infrastructure that will get attacked, will get DDoS'd [1], making us all lose (eldentyrell wasting time effectively doing sysadmin work, and customers' miners being down).
I am only willing to reward him more if he would distibute his bitstream the way I described.
[1] The anti-DDoS measures that eldentyrell describes in his FAQ seem trivial to bypass. He seems to only think about dumb attacks like SYN floods. For one, I can think of clients submitting many legitimate signcryption requests to effectively tax his CPUs, not network links. Let's be real, DDoS proofing a service is hard and costly. Eldentyrell certainly cannot do it given his very small profits (again, only $1300/month assuming 1000 FPGAs using is bitstream). For comparison, MtGox spends more than a few thousand USD per month for their anti-DDoS service.
Well then ET is more magnanimous than you. Even more reason to support his protocol.
Technically this makes you a tightwad
Whereas I, as a customer, am willing to compensate eldentyrell more, for his remarkable work.
Well then ET is more magnanimous than you. Even more reason to support his protocol.
Technically this makes you a tightwad
Whereas I am willing to compensate eldentyrell more, if he would distribute his bitstream the way I described.
This entire "he's going to make too much money/btc" thought is a bunch of horseshit.
You don't understand me.
I am saying the exact opposite.
eldentyrell's method will make him too little money ($1300/mo with 1000 FPGAs).
My method would likely compensate him more.
So Alice has plenty of incentive to defect. She doesn't have that much incentive not to. Not everybody uses this kind of FPGA, so the difficulty increase from propagating the data is minor, and hasn't much effect on Alice's own mining profits.
[...]
Even if this somehow works, it creates unnecessary risk in the valuation. Suppose someone develops an equivalent open-source bitstream tomorrow. Then the data will become worthless, and in retrospect, the data is almost worthless today. When Alice buys the data she doesn't know for how long it will have added value, so she's basically gambling. There's nothing inherently wrong with a risky investment but it's still inferior to a product where you pay exactly what it is worth. With a cut taken by the creator this is what happens - as long as his product creates value he receives a reward proportional to the created value, when it no longer does he's no longer rewarded.
[...]
Even if this somehow works, it creates unnecessary risk in the valuation. Suppose someone develops an equivalent open-source bitstream tomorrow. Then the data will become worthless, and in retrospect, the data is almost worthless today. When Alice buys the data she doesn't know for how long it will have added value, so she's basically gambling. There's nothing inherently wrong with a risky investment but it's still inferior to a product where you pay exactly what it is worth. With a cut taken by the creator this is what happens - as long as his product creates value he receives a reward proportional to the created value, when it no longer does he's no longer rewarded.
Thanks. You make very good points in your rebuttal (Alice has incentives to defect, and this is basically a risky investment.)
This entire "he's going to make too much money/btc" thought is a bunch of horseshit.
You don't understand me.
I am saying the exact opposite.
eldentyrell's method will make him too little money ($1300/mo with 1000 FPGAs).
My method would likely compensate him more.
I can offer 50BTC too.
You would pay 50BTC to go from 245MH/s to 258MH/s (effective) ?
I would pay 50BTC to ET for free downloadable 245MH/s bitstream working without his signcryption servers.
I can offer 50BTC too.
You would pay 50BTC to go from 245MH/s to 258MH/s (effective) ?
Rename thread to:
Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
+1Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
Mrb, weren't you the one that developed a proprietary 6990 miner that only a select few were able to utilize due to this method?
ET's idea is fair and allows everyone to benefit. If you don't like his compensation method don't use it and put the huge amount of time and effort involved into developing your own bitstream. Then you can distribute your elite code to the select few.
This entire "he's going to make too much money/btc" thought is a bunch of horseshit.
Early buyers paid a lot of money to receive it early, and have little incentive to leak the bitstream. Buyers down the list are more likely to leak it, but by this time, eldentyrell should have received most of his compensation.
A bunch of clever people would form a group to get the first seat, just to leak it to all of themselves, and possibly others.
Cgminer is free but you have the option to donate a percentage to the makers.
There is no option to donate anything in cgminer. That feature was removed a long time ago because I found very few people donated so I gave up assuming people would be generous if asked. On the other hand, p2pool has a donation feature that is enabled by default unless you disable it manually. I suggested I should enable the donation feature for cgminer when I was working on it by default and I got crucified by a handful of people and decided it wasn't worth the bad karma. So now there is no donation feature at all since I hardly earned anything useful from it.Same with MPBM. It has that option, and it had it enabled by default from the very beginning, but >90% of people turn it off. It generated a total of around 5-10BTC so far, which is totally not worth it.
Rename thread to:
Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
I agree, this won't fly.
Cgminer is free but you have the option to donate a percentage to the makers.
There is no option to donate anything in cgminer. That feature was removed a long time ago because I found very few people donated so I gave up assuming people would be generous if asked. On the other hand, p2pool has a donation feature that is enabled by default unless you disable it manually. I suggested I should enable the donation feature for cgminer when I was working on it by default and I got crucified by a handful of people and decided it wasn't worth the bad karma. So now there is no donation feature at all since I hardly earned anything useful from it.Ditto.
Rename thread to:
Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
Here is how NOT to compensate bitstream developers
Cgminer is free but you have the option to donate a percentage to the makers.
There is no option to donate anything in cgminer. That feature was removed a long time ago because I found very few people donated so I gave up assuming people would be generous if asked. On the other hand, p2pool has a donation feature that is enabled by default unless you disable it manually. I suggested I should enable the donation feature for cgminer when I was working on it by default and I got crucified by a handful of people and decided it wasn't worth the bad karma. So now there is no donation feature at all since I hardly earned anything useful from it.Donation sent, CGMiner rocks!
Cgminer is free but you have the option to donate a percentage to the makers.
There is no option to donate anything in cgminer. That feature was removed a long time ago because I found very few people donated so I gave up assuming people would be generous if asked. On the other hand, p2pool has a donation feature that is enabled by default unless you disable it manually. I suggested I should enable the donation feature for cgminer when I was working on it by default and I got crucified by a handful of people and decided it wasn't worth the bad karma. So now there is no donation feature at all since I hardly earned anything useful from it. Jump to: