You're asking the pool operators to steal from Claymore?
That's propaganda language. We all know what is actually happening. Calling it stealing is a way to smear the value judgments of others in an area where precedent is thin and vocabularies thinner. I consider Claymore's miner a threat to Monero. Because it is just a miner, it is a relatively low grade threat, but it is still a threat. He chose to release it freely, with no license for download. What we do with it is up to us. There is almost no similarity to stealing. although I admit some tenuous analogy does exist.
"We all know what is actually happening" -- I must be wearing my stupid hat today, because it sounds to me like a pool threatening to take money mined to one address and redistribute it in a way other than what the standard pool contract and fee schedule indicates.
But please do educate me. That hat, you see.
It's one thing if an individual miner modifies their copy of the binary to behave in a manner other than the way it did originally. That's up to the miner, any license on the code that they agree to, etc. But once that mining reaches the pool, how is it any different from any other user having submitted a share?
Perhaps Claymore also has 100 of his own GPUs mining to that same address.
Perhaps I'm running one of my GPUs mining directly to his donation address as a way to say thank you.
It's not the pool's place to judge unless that's advertised clearly, in advance, with enough time for miners and developers to decide whether they are willing to support that kind of behavior.
The
precedent is that pools pay in accordance with their policy regarding shares, found blocks, and pool fees, and they do so reliably and transparently. The pools that don't do so are stealing, whether they do it by stealing from all users with hidden excess fees, fake extra accounts, or pocketing developer fees.
