Topic: Kano vs Bitsyncom - page 6. (Read 15322 times)

So... Nice weather outside, no?

If you keep repeating this, it may become true! Maybe try tapping your heels together to increase the odds.

No, you're quoting because you actually think that someone would bother to go back and edit their post after you (literally or figuratively) school them using your vast intellect, and that they wouldn't be able to face being humiliated by you. Since you think that this is reasonable behavior, I shall do the same.


Quoted, because it seems like you actually believe that detailed information about TSMC's processes exists in the modded cgminer.

Really - you sure of that - you were actually able to read all the words in the GPLv3 license - no words need explaining?
I'm not quite sure why you needed to make an OT post proving that you've learnt to read.
Some sort of milestone you've finally reached?

Also ... let me know when you can actually commit a line of useful code ... some time in the distant future.

Anyway, Xiangfu is getting one as per GitSyncom's statement ... and as I've said a few times ... I don't want one.

What the actual fuck. Why would fine-grained details about TSMC's manufacturing nodes be present in the modified cgminer?

PS they didn't meet their date they supplied last week of having it this weekend just passed.
My comment a few paragraphs up saying 'a date that either just expired or is yet another week away' was before I checked which weekend he said it would be (on the 8th)
Even allowing for being in the wrong country (NewYork USA) and adding a whole extra day delay ... it's still past the weekend and no source on the link on the web site or any of the threads I've checked.
I guess it 'could' be a "give the source only to Jeff" ... but as far as Jeff is concerned he doesn't even want it ... and that smells of a rat somewhere with both Jeff and Avalon.

I dont think the GPL license says anything about getting free hardware because you commit some code.

Yeah, how dare he request that they release the mask sets for their ASICs. At least ask for something more reasonable like the GPL'ed mining software.

Why would you assume that releasing the source would disadvantage avalon?
What about the modifications is so special yet generic enough it can be applied to a competing product?
You talk about rational people but i have seen little ratio at times from the asic companies themselfs.
How can you rationally manage such irrational behaviour?
And how the hell can you call your pathetic "they are asking Avalon to nearly commit suicide for the sake of an ilusory freedom boo hoo leave britney avalon alone" bullshit anything resembling rational? lol

You're like a broken record... Change it.

No, this thread is about the GPL license requirements of cgminer.
It's not about some random person (you) idea about how that fits in with their thoughts on GPL and hardware.

GitSyncom has stated (for the 3rd time ... this time with a date that either just expired or is yet another week away) that they will release the source.

The issue why I brought this argument up was actually mainly due to the bogus excuse as to why they hadn't yet released it.
They supposedly completed 2 Avalon's on the 20th of Jan that contain the results of all of their different source code.
They have supposedly since then been making 12 Avalon a day (each with binaries made from that source code) and yet the bogus excuse was that they needed to remove something from it before they could release it.
Of course there are 2 issues: 1) They can't do that with cgminer and keep to the required licence 2) If they are referring to the non-cgminer code, then well that just means they've now made and shipped over 200 Avalons that have this so called problematic debugging code that is required to be removed - unless the "12 Avalons a day" was bogus.

I can tell you up front:
The cgminer code will be using the FPGA serial-USB library.
The cgminer code will have modified the scanhash is some manner to acquire ~24 work items at a time (instead of 1) coz the Avalon requires a group of items sent to it at a time ... no big deal ... and it's not ground breaking coz it's not even a queue as per discussion about improving performance.
Neither of those are any sort of advancement on cgminer, the first is something I've been removing from cgminer, the 2nd is something that is being developed properly now for the BFL SC's if they appear soon and use it in an optimal way ... as a queue.
The other changes they may have made in cgminer will not be ground breaking in any manner or form.
i.e. there really is no excuse to not have already released the cgminer code by a company who promotes themselves as Open Source to the Bitcoin community.
The results of that are that if anyone else does get an Avalon (which is still questionable more than 3 weeks after they shipped the first one) they are unable to deal with any cgminer problems themselves - and also an already known memory problem cannot be implemented by anyone who gets an Avalon, until the source code is released, without having to reinvent the code (which would also normally be done if any of the devs actually had the hardware ... though I'll be the one to help Xiangfu to do that ... if he does get an Avalon)

IMHO the best proverb to describe this thread is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

I expected this would be first reply... Missed, it was second  

In Soviet Russia, ASIC mines you!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself with the family guy reference)

What I'm pointing out is that kjj is preaching from the Free Software Foundation bible in the church of Hardware.

The actions that make sense in software business are frequently suicidal in the hardware business. This is because of the cost structure: hardware is mostly front-end-loaded, whereas software is mostly back-end-loaded.

Yes, Avalon made a mistake by using a code requiring GPLv3 compliance. They should've designed a separation layer like many hardware vendors that support Linux. But the Avalon team is young and inexperienced and they didn't design for that.

My position is that rational supporters of Bitcoin would attempt to come up with some middle-of-the-road solution to safeguard the existence of viable competition of multiple vendors in the Bitcoin ASIC business. What I see is almost exact opposite: they are asking Avalon to nearly commit suicide for the sake of an ilusory freedom. Ilusory, because for the gain of few pages of source the whole Bitcoin ecosystem is paying the price of severely disadvantaging one of the ASIC vendors, to the point that in the next iteration we could have a monopoly.

The rational behaviour would be probably along several possible lines:

a) disclose the code only to Jeff Garzik. He's professionally involved in Linux kernel development and may be able to offer some useful advice on how to both comply with GPLv3 and TSMC/whoever-else NDAs.

b) offer to escrow the code with Bitcoin Foundation and have a programmer at B.F. to produce an obfuscated code that complies both with GPLv3 and NDAs. There are already multiple precedents in escrowing the information with Gavin Andresen, but thus far the escrow was security-related.

c) I personally think that the "binary blob" workaround isn't viable here for purely technical reasons. But I may be wrong. Maybe somebody willing and able to sign the NDA could help Avalon to develop such a solution.

d) take a chill pill and make Avalon folks pinky swar that they disclose the required information after the competition shipped and after the subsequent batches are locked in with TSMC.

But this thread isn't about being rational. It is about militancy, a very short-sighted militancy of playing open-face chinese-rules poker at the traditional-rules poker table.

Think for a moment: What would Richard Stallman do if he had a single tapeout to his name before he received his MacArthur Fellowship? We wouldn't have a Free Software Foundation. We would have maybe a Free Logic Foundation or Free Computation Foundation or something else. But I believe that we would be better off: maybe we could have open-source processors and disk drives in our open-source computers.

Not only in Russia. In Portugal we also have that proverb, literally.

bla-bla-bla
In Russia we have good proverb for that situation: "The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on".

Are you actually complaining about the GPL license? kjj is absolutely correct. Avalon took GPL source, modified it, and failed to offer the source. That is a violation, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if they promised to release it later. It doesn't matter if they are giving up trade secrets to release it. If they don't like the terms of the GPL, they shouldn't have used GPL source. But they did use GPL source, and they have violated the license.

2112's post sounded awfully cryptic but I suppose that's why companies strongly protect their trade, production, etc., and have lawyers.

Well, aside from all the FUD in this thread, it just sounds like Avalon has to do the right thing(s); that's up to them and no one else.  Hope it helps making mine with their units better.

At least Inaba posts SOMETHING    Even if it's a troll feed or delay 

I haven't heard about a tracking # or shipping update from Avalon for a few weeks now