Topic: Z9 Series Full and Mini Modded Efudd NO-DEV FEE 100% - Individual Clocking (Read 2171 times)

does this firmware allow a 4th hash board?  I was told this is possible with the mini.

The best indication of your product is to provide someone mine. I thank you!

I also thank you for conveying the confidence you have in your own product and abilities.

-j

Yes it is working just fine

is this firmware working as today? sorry for reviving the thread.

It hasn't mined a dev pool since I modded and started using it in January... There is no pool redirected in the host file only your api server. The other two I know whats wrong just don't have time yet to fix it. As far as restarting after it is running, that hasn't happened at all. Who cares how many releases I put out as long as each has something new. How many have you put out? At least 6 versions.

The only releases I have put out are 1 for batch 2 factory, 1 for all batches mini with updated web gui, and 1 for the fullsize with overclocking expanded. Then this which is modded of yours. Others have also been using the full on the mini for a few months with no problems. There will also be an update version again as soon as I get the time to do some more with it.

Lol, so yoUr new instructions are exactly what I said would happen. You are missing at least two things. First, you are really just running the Z9 image and the extra starting time is due to the failure loop not being able to initialize all of the ASICs since they physically don’t exist (chip coins is wrong.. lol).

Second in that scenario even though it will eventually “give up” and start anyway, it will also “give up” and stop again in the future. Go read the cgminer source to figure out why.. that part is in the stock code at least.

Ah, the third thing is you have missed redirecting two other dev pools embedded in that image. So you probably should find those before advertising this out to folk.

But hey, if that is how you want the community to remember your fourth release, all good.

Lastly, I owe documentation to google legal. Thank you for reminding me.

-j

Updated with directions for use on the Z9 Minis

LOL.

good luck.

-j

Let me rephrase it, Some of the conditions are because the asic count and others conditions are fan/tmp related, that I knew even with factory firmware. I guess should have said I agree with you rather then spell it out.

That problem can be fixed with code from a mini version of cgminer or by extracting the equihash ProgPow and whatever else is needed for the z9 and mini then recompiling a new version with the auto-tune and nicehash fixes that have been implemented in other versions of cgminer

I guess if you think I am so hopeless, you dont have nothing to worry about on future releases then or getting a mini to run correct dev free.

That edit you just made to your response to add what I left quoted is a perfect example of why you are hopeless... I *LITERALLY* told you that in my response when I said "... ASIC count being off by 12 per chain". ... and that is NOT the reason why fan/temp won't work properly.

... on first start up, it will retry 3 times, not have the proper count, but continue on anyway (factory behaviour). I said this when I said "... after a couple of retry conditions...".

The problem is *PAST* that case, after things are running, even if fan/temp are not presenting properly, there are additional failure conditions that will terminate cgminer and restart the whole process in a longer loop.

There are very good reasons why I did not "unify" the firmware so one could run on both models...

*sigh*.

"Honey, I can't go to bed yet, someone is wrong on the Internet!"

-j

Don't know if your trying to throw a bone or a curveball but either way it will be noted. I will also agree not to mess with anything you put out after 2.1d and let you move on with it all. So I will play with the old and you can have the new, I will also consider implementing a users choice they can choose your dev mode or free mode from the configuration screen. This way you can still get support from users who choose to go that way since some did express their view on my mod or I may not do nothing more to it. Sound fair to work it out this way?

Personally I would have made a non-dev mode but limited to say 2 clocks instead of 3 in non-dev and the full 3 in dev or a selectable dev-fee per clock if they clock 1 different they dev for x minutes if they clock 2 separate then the dev is longer and so on. Based on the coin prices there are times when dev-fees are eating the profit, an example is the minis now are only about 30 or so a month profit after electric.


The issue with it dropping on a mini is the detection of errors will look for 8 of 16 asics and a 4 count is too little or fan/tmp. That is at least from my playing that is what I have come up with.

lol.

You are hopeless sir, completely hopeless.

Here's a bone for you; the version you have will actually run on a Mini, however it will try to initialize as a large. After a couple of retry conditions it will successfully bring a mini up, but data outputs such as fan speed and temperature will either be unreliable or not respond at all. Second, there are certain error conditions where the Z9 firmware running on a Mini will fail completely even after a successful start due to the ASIC count being off by 12 per chain.

Good luck with your endeavors.

-j

You don't have a legal right for libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 to deny me the rights to use or make changes lgcm is directly related to
the other file and cgminer in a roundabout way so they are also part of it all.

You may not agree and at this point I said I will not debate anymore on the matter and will await your Federal Court Order to pul it
back down or destroy it. Any further harassment from you for the use withuot a Federal Court Order could result in civil legals actions
against you.

If it makes you happy I did take a word of advice from you, I had a legal team look at the factory firmware, yours, and the one I did
to come to the following conclusions.

Conclusion 1:

Since you changed the original file libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 that was copyrighted and LGPL'd deleting it and replacing it with a file
the same name regardless of the contents or whether is was being used or not is considered a modification of the library package
which is copyrighted and LGPL licensed. The change in contents under the law and license is a modification and the copyright and license cant be side stepped the way you are trying to.

Under the LGPL license you must allow others to use that file now for free of charge, supply the source code and object files
for the file libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 and to allow modifications. Failure to do so puts you in violation of the origional
creators copyrights and LGPL license terms. Which you are already in violation of because you failed to notify users the library
package is no longer the origional files and modifications have been made.

The file lcgm legally under LGPL's linking terms to libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 makes it become one bigger program.

Your claim to obfusicate the contents with that name is irrelevent to the situation, the facts show you used the LGPL'd library
package file to create a modification of the library.

Package Data

Package: libnss-mdns
Version: 0.10-r7.0
Description: libnss-mdns version 0.10-r7
NSS module for Multicast DNS name resolution
Section: libs
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Angstrom Developers <[email protected]>
License: LGPLv2.1+
Architecture: armv7ahf-vfp-neon
OE: libnss-mdns
Homepage: http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/nss-mdns/
Depends: avahi-daemon, libc6 (>= 2.17)
Source: http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/nss-mdns/nss-mdns-0.10.tar.gz

Package Included files

/lib/libnss_mdns6_minimal.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns6.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns4_minimal.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2  ------ File you are trying to claim copyright on
/lib/libnss_mdns4.so.2


Conclusion 2:

You have no claim to DMCA violations as stated in 17 U.S. Code §1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems:
 
"if the circumventor obtains access to the copyrighted material through a copyright owner-sponsored method, even if that access is illegally obtained, the circumventor is merely bypassing permission of the copyright owner and does not violate the DMCA"

Your owner-sponsored method was used in my modification. I did not have to do anything to decrypt the files, where it has been ruled by the courts that if there is no encryption then there is no violation. You also released it to the public I did not have to obtain it illegally.


Conclusion 3

Under the copyright laws "Fair Use" provisions I may claim "Transformative Use" which is allowed without your permission and not in violation of the claimed copyrighted files. You may view for some details but not all Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569.

Under 17 U.S. Code §117 Sub. D, any person may use the code for maintnance or repair, in this case to set cgminer back to a fully free
program which is factory specs. It already had overclocking so that part doesnt matter in this situation. Only thing here you can do is
file for me to destroy the copy, and my defense would be that I cant just make a copy from the machine thru it's normal operation. When in a situation like that the copy does not have to be destroyed always.

Conclusion 4

You cannot claim a loss in revenue since you thanked me for increasing your user base which is an increase in profit and not a loss. It would be hard now to go into court and change your mind, any losses now cannot be proven to be directly related to what I released since there was an increase in users and not a decrease.


Conclusion 5

You are in violation of Bitmain copyrights and cannot claim a violation while you are in violation yourself. Some files are copyrighted by Bitmain and not open source they do clearly notify the users at the bottom of the screen with the copyright symbol. I have verification and the emails between Bitmain and myself clearly stating the copyrights status. The current license status file shipped with cgminer in the firmware package is marked as "Closed" other files have their own copyright and licenses.

Sometimes, a business fires a customer, too.

Just. Sad.

-j

That was no argument that was a statement as to why I modified the firmware, It was to inform that I did try to be a customer and there were issues because I pointed out things going on with his fw.

At that point is when I decided to make changes myself, even then I did not release it right away I waited over a month from the first stable mod I made. So lets not act like I just made the changes and released it immediately I was being fair until Jason wanted to be an ass when I inquired for some clients.

If your going to be in the sales business you need to sometimes just suck it up and move on because your actions to 1 customer can show a lot of character. What's to say another user doesn't say or do something to make him mad, then the next thing he is messing with your machines because of it. I was always told don't judge a book by its cover and that same principle applies to a forum.

As far as 2 wrongs making it right, there is a point there. I look at it as 2 wrongs can break even sometimes. If you were accused by Jason for trying to steal or rip him off like he did to me a few months back for asking whether he offers his beta testers a free license, then you would understand. I could sue him for false accusations without proof or facts.

Actually I have been busy on something else and have heard back from the legal sources. I will get the conclusions together with links for you to possibly reference over the next few days. As far as you claiming losses you already admitted it has increased your users so that is an increase and not a loss, you even thanked me for posting the file.

After I post the information there will be no more debate with you on it and I will await your papers from federal court if you feel the need to file anything. At this point it would be up the courts to make a decision on the current situation whether I am or you are in violation of copyrights and license violations. From some of the conclusion if argued by Bitmain we both would be in violation.

I dont know about you, but as a child I was taught that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Your argument for why its ok for you to be shitty is that he was shitty first? Wow man you really look like a winner with that attitude....

Oh, he is waiting for Google’s default DMCA process handling to “prove” he is correct. See, google actually disavows itself of Copyright claim. It will respond to an initial complaint by removing the content. However, if a counter claim is filed, regardless of the legitimacy, google will notify the original filer (me) of that action and provide 10 days during which time a court order, intention to file, etc. must be handed to google otherwise they will default to reenabling the link.

Remember that and think back to his posts saying “google has agreed with me and the link is active”, which it was not. Then remember he said google contacted him and told him it would be reinstated in 72 hours, which they did not and it did not go live again.

Etc..

so in a couple more days his link will go live again I expect, but only due to timing. Google does not appear to be willing to work with me on their “10 days”, despite the filings actually being in process.

What he also does not understand is that IF I was in violation of the GPL the limitation of my liability is, per the GPL website, that “the community may look down on me”.

However, if my claim is correct, then outside of the GPL, his posting for free of a paid work would be subject to remuneration of my loss of income by his actions if such a thing to go to court and my claims be proven correct.

To summarize, if I’m wrong, “oops”. If he is wrong, he would be subject to fines and repayment of my losses. ... and since I had this happen before and can actually define the losses by practical example, it would not be pretty.

... and the last response I provided some of the implementation details hoping to provide him some wisdom that he should share with his “lawyer friends” before continuing. If any of them actually specialize in IP law and copyright, they should advise him similarly and of the “costs” of him being wrong.

But hey, what do I know. I am not a lawyer. Just someone with the clue enough to not violate GPL in the implementation of my work specifically to ensure it was defendable.

-j

3 days later

*crickets*

(Arg, I can't seem to not respond to this freaking stupidity...)

You are a blithering idiot.

Zero code in cgminer was changed, even at runtime. The only thing that has "changed" is allowing the user to specify a frequency which is not a change in the code, but rather a change in the argument provided to a function/API.

That function is "set_frequency_chain()".

$ strings cgminer|grep set_frequency
set_frequency_chain

_LITERALLY_ the only thing "changed" is that the user has the ability to specify a frequency to that function. That function was not re-written in any way and is used exactly as bitmain provided (I don't have the source, bitmain doesn't release it).

That's it.

So, to make your own firmware, follow these easy steps:

The rest is simple: hook the function and call the _original_ function with the frequencies specified by the user. "Ta-Da!".

Then go modify the web interfaces, the configuration handling, the startup files, etc. to support the new frequency options and presentation to the end user. *THAT* *IS* GPL and you *HAVE* the source code by proxy of actually having the firmware itself. The modifications I made to say, 'minerStatus.html' *IS* GPL, but the changes I made, I own the copyright on. YOU by proxy have a LICENSE to re-use that GPL'd content, even the portion of my changes that are mine.

Also, learn how this stuff actually works so you can _help_ users.

Ask your "lawyer friend" about copyright vs. license.

Oh, and none of the above is what I am claiming a violation of my copyright on. The code which handles licensing and enforcement, as well as dev-fee handling, and handling of the user choice of frequency (not counting the web pages which are GPL) before it is passed to the _default_ cgminer function is not GPL and is proprietary and *THAT* is what you should not redistribute or modify.

-j

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so. The law and the licenses speak for themselves. I am verifying the details thru legal channels before I post more. Unfortunately for efudd it is not good for his files and if he chooses to fight it he will have to spend some money in federal court to try to stop it, his state court has no jurisdiction here. I have many rights under the law and copyright that allows me to use the package whether Jason recognizes them or not it is the law.

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

It has a lot to do with it because that file is a LGPL protected file and removing it and replacing it doesn't protect your contents, that file to begin with was part of a library package and by you removing it from the package is a modification and replacing it with the same name under the LGPL, I don't know why you are trying to claim it is not. I will have the full details once I get it all back from being looked at for violations of the existing license's.  Unfortunately for you this person knows much more then you and I on this matter since he holds numerous copyrights including work I have done and numerous patents for arm and apple technology. You obviously cant grasp the fact you screwed up and I can legally use and distribute the files in the released package.

You may think your dealing with an idiot because the way I am on this forum but you are very wrong about me and my understanding and education on matters. I have as much experience at this as you do the only difference is the type of device we are dealing with including experience is evidence processing where analyzing this type of situation was part of my job.

A filename does not equate to the contents... so report away.... since the contents of the file named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' shipped in my firmware has absolutely nothing to do with the the GNU 'libnss-mdns'. You are unfortunately incapable of grokking the semantic.

This will be my last response to you, so enjoy your freedom to make more crap up.

-j

I wasn't asking how to stop it, I was informing you that your claim of separation from the open source program is much more intimate
then you claimed and that indeed your files take over cgminer 100% in an attempt to turn an open source program into your own pay program. This appears that you are claiming another's work (cgminer and Bitmain's) as your own. Which the copyright of Bitmain's is clearly shown the firmware is copyrighted. I will also be reporting your LGPL violation for the libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 file and library package.

Story of his life

Just because you don’t know how does not mean it can’t. Try contacting a technical resource to give you clue.

Kill lcgm, stop the auto restart by renaming it, run cgminer. Voila, factory firmware.

-j

Jason,

You need to be a little more specific on what parts of the code you claiming copyright, you cant claim the whole files because most or many of the commands are common routines or otherwise known to the general public already. So please be a little more specific.
Also the files are not covered  under the 17 U.S. Code § 1201 as ruled by the courts already

"if the circumventor obtains access to the copyrighted material through a copyright owner-sponsored method, even if that access is illegally obtained, the circumventor is merely bypassing permission of the copyright owner and does not violate the DMCA"

and

The courts have also ruled that since you did not encrypt the files there is no violation either under DMCA or 17 U.S. Code § 1201.

So basically we are back to the copyright only. I will have more in the next few days once I hear back from legal sources.

Your lgcm does not allow cgminer to run either if killed so the relationship between them is more then you are trying to claim. In fact if I kill the process cgminer stops and then restarts with the lgcm also restarted. Therefore at this point your files took control over an opensource file 100% and their relationship is a little more intimate then you lead on.

Notice how while he pulled the download link, he left his crypto address for donations. Lmao.

chipless,

Sadly, you are still wrong. As the basis of your argument is that the whole distribution ("firmware package") is GPL, when it is not. Further, Communication between lcgm and its associated library and cgminer  do not occur by "exchanging complex internal data structures" for example. They are in fact, not interlinked in that manner. They can, actually, run completely standalone from cgminer, and vice versa. The fact that they are two separate processes is another example of this.

So yeah. Here are some other examples that you will likelyfind reason to ignore.

A linux distribution (which is all this firmware is), is not by itself GPL'd. The individual components within may be, or may have other licenses associated with it. One example is while the kernel is GPL, cgminer is GPL, other components have different licenses. The packaging in that scenario is not "all GPL" as you are continuing to misunderstand.

A linux distribution that ships with apache, will have a combination of GPL and Apache License depending on the content within. nginx, another common webserver/swiss army knife is under a BSD type license, but yet included in many distributions. OpenSSH, another common component distributed in linux distributions, is specifically not GPL, but rather a BSD type license.

You see, a given OS distribution can have unique components within it that have differing licenses. This is part of why I have stated that my claim is on 'lcgm' and the contents that are named 'libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2' for obfuscation purposes.

If your argument were true, RedHat, SUSE, Caldera, Gentoo, and any other common linux distribution would all be in violation for having "GPL" and "non-GPL" code running on the same computer, from the same distribution.

It really is sad if you cannot see the differences here.

-j

LOL... No I didn't steal his code I disabled part of it and put it back out in the same exact package he had it in. I never took a penny from any dev fee.... I'm not embarrassed at all. The link was removed and will be replaced with an alternate option for users.

You and fudd are missing some parts that fudd don't want to recognize under the GPL …. It was illegal for him to release the firmware in the beginning period....

He has no rights distribute the firmware unless he follows the GPL of the original package.

The license covers of 100% of the package he started with. Which clearly states if he redistributes the GPL'd work in the package as a complete package then he must follow the GPL and can not add additional terms to the package that exceed the GPL, but if he would have separated his stuff from the package and distributed it differently it wouldn't matter. He can argue all he wants copyright but he at most has copyleft rights which allows me to do what I did. He is restricted from distributing the package commercially unless he follows the GPL, maybe I will just file a takedown on him since he don't want to follow the GPL and is illegally distributing the package.

Read on it here or elsewhere the info is the same

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

"The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL."

"Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. Developers may make private modified versions with no obligation to divulge the modifications, as long as they do not distribute the modified software to anyone else. Note that copyleft applies only to the software, and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program)"

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

cgminer is open source and he is combining his code in memory to cgminer making it 1 larger program. I can go on but there is no reason to and fudd needs to suck it up and accept what happens with his releases where he used the Bitmain firmware as his base. He needs to create a new base to work from or follow the license of the package he started with. He started with someone elses work and so will I regardless of his claim, maybe he should take his own advice and build the whole package from scratch then he cant whine.



 

So let me get this straight.....

chipless steals code, and by proxy money directly from fudds pockets for something he has earned by putting the work in

then gets indignant when called out about it

and is now threatening things like an angry teenager on an internet rampage


Chipless...you do realize you are 100% in the wrong? Wait why am I asking, you know you are or you wouldnt have removed the link...

You have lost this battle so badly you have nothing left to hang on to other than some empty threats, if I was you I would be so embarrassed I would never post again.

Go fish.

-j

You think it is all funny but part of it wasn't so funny, I never posted personal details, no city, no state, or any other information that could lead to you, as far as the bash just wanted to inform you of the data in case you had a problem with your system it is on a few sites. The search skills are right on, I know everything I need to about you. You still own the beamer?

Lol.

The humor here is the massive blustering in private message and then here about “criminal actions” and “not a threat, a guarantee”. Yet, you have apparently just tried to do what you claim I did. How is that going to work out for you?

The better part is I actually respected your “command” (you made it clear that it was not a request, your words) and then you attempted to “cause harassment” by your (see how “you are” does not fit here?) own actions.

As far as the quote goes, I submitted that myself to bash.org (which was started and is run by friends of mine) in 1999; it is quite hilarious in the context.

As to the rest, you might want to work on your internet searching skills as they are not properly calibrated.

-j

Man I had a little respect for you until I just found out about your assault on a female in 2014. Only a pussy would do that. How did it turn out anyways? Innocent? Guilty? Tell us more JLB. I would rather be called a thief, criminal, or whatever you want but man, I sure wouldn't want to be known as a woman beater. Or is it a different Jason? it looks like you need the money more then being free, that dam house payment and the attorneys fee or fines can add up quick...You go your way and I will go mine.... Good Luck

Also if this is associated with you, you may want to check your systems because you may have a bug or virus sending data to sites on the internet

Subject: Req For Winframe Account
  Hi Jason,
  Can U pl... Create this account Immediatly.
  User Id : crapolxx
  Password :crapolxx
  Other Info
  1) User Full Name:Claudia Rapolxx

I believe you meant "you're", not "your". HTH. HAND.

-j

That link is gone and any results of harassment from it will come back on you guaranteed, whether it was on a link or not you took it upon yourself to use it for harassment purposes on this forum. Bottom line is you crossed the line here and as I said if any harassment comes to me or my family, you and me have a real big legal problem bigger then your pussy civil action, guaranteed. That's not a threat either it is a guarantee I will take legal action. Same with the pussy wannabe rocketman.

In 25 yrs on the internet your the first baby I have seen cry copyrights violations on any forum that deals with custom firmware and other related hardware/software topics. I have a backup plan already because anyone who mods the firmware can use it for their own personal use and your copyright claims don't mean shit as long as they don't redistribute it.

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

The code in lcgm and the contents that I named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' is 100% original code dude, not stuff built from someone else's work. You still don't seem to get that.

You are correct that the concept of "code" cannot be copyrighted, but algorithms and methods, *can* be patented. It is literally (and I know what the word 'literally' means) impossible for you to do what I did without violating copyright -- and you don't have the experience or knowledge to even understand that. I don't mean that to be an insult, you just don't show the aptitude to comprehend this.

Kinda like how you were arguing that people didn't understand your energy thing? Except in this, I'm right, and in that, you were wrong.. just like here, where you are wrong.

I mean, you tried to use the fact that you had previously released "my" firmware as an argument to support your energy claims. How ridiculous is that?

BUT, if you'd like to start, learn ARM assembly because a large portion of the core functionality was written in assembly, not C.

Anyway,

Good luck Mr Grams.

-j

You abandoned that thread right around the time your first power bill showed up lolololol

See I can use whatever I want from it without any violation, its a matter of how I put it together, you cant copyright the code itself you can only try to copyright certain groups of routines. There is more then 1 way to get the final process done that you cant copyright.

There is only 1 variation of your stuff the 2.0c the rest are original work.

I will add any common routine or codes already known to the public cant be copyrighted

Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.

Good luck on that power inverter!

Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.

I'll see you on your next release -- this was your what, 4th release of firmware? You have 5 new threads on bitcointalk, 4 of which are variations on my firmware, one is 'free energy'.

Have a nice evening, Mark.

Jason

Rather then go back and forth with you I am going switch to what I should have done in the beginning, you can count this as a win or whatever you want, I only call it a small setback. Nope no notice, it was a decision I made rather then sit and go back and forth

Ah, I guess you just received the takedown notice for USC. 17 Section 1201, also and are trying to adjust on the fly as a result?

Keep editing...

-j

Keep editing your original post... your lies just compound. First it was "the link has been restored", then it was "it will be restored in 72 hours", then it was "I have a backup plan!"...

Sadly, I think you actually believe the things you say.

I would suggest you read up on Dunning-Kruger, but you would not get it.

-j

However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide.

Better yet I will just enable my backup plan, I will remove the link for now, it is out there enough for people to share until the new version comes out.

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

Good luck Mr. Grams. While we're waiting, hope about that circular energy? Can you update us on how your attempt to turn 500W into 5000W+ worked out?

-j

Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"?

Also, you might want to check again.

--snip--
We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center.
--snip--

-j

omg, thanks for this... good toilet entertainment!

Thank you for your input. I do agree developers should get paid with that said, when I did try to do legit business with him on the fw he acted like an ass because I pointed out the control he had and I released a free version for batch 4 minis. He also led people on by offering a licensed version then pulls the license and says dev only from now on unless you have a large number of units. In my opinion at that point he realized he can profit more from dev only and didn't care about getting the miners the most out of the machines as he claims.

He accused me of trying to rip him off when I was asking legit questions for legit business and before I even considered looking into the fw. His actions led me to look into the GPL fw he started with and I then made a decision once I determined I had the right to change what I wanted. It is all in black and white in the GPL license terms as to how and when I can change his files. He needs to package his files as a upgrade without the original files, only his, because once he packages it with the GPL fw he has to follow the GPL terms the way he linked everything together. I am not demanding his source code which under GPL he is required to release for his 2.1 versions, in those versions he changed cgminer which is open source which he is required to supply the source code if requested.

I don't care about the money part of it and if people want to donate to him still that is great, if they want to donate to me for my work then fine too, but this isn't about the money, it is about getting the most out of the miner investment and being honest and forward with people who want to use the fw… No backdoors, no you pissed me off so I am shutting down your miner, and no random dev fee connections or failure to come out of dev mode.

efudd, you're arguing with someone that thinks he can lower his electric bill by running his miners off an inverter powered by a wind turbine generator, thats being driven from an electric motor plugged back into the house electric.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/alternative-electricity-for-mining-5093693

comprehension isnt his strong suit.

he comes up with half baked schemes because he just wants to be in the "club" of contributors so he can try to get free handouts to his crypto addresses.

This is a fun thing to read I have to say.  I will agree with one thing that is being said here, the fees (efudd).  I believe every developer should get paid.  I have seen your firmware and thought of trying it.  But the dev fees outweigh the rewards.  Now this is honestly your choice since you did do work to make it work correctly.  But a small one time use fee or a 0.5% could be considered more  reasonable.  Also the back door into your the miner shouldn't be there.  Bitmain does it, and I wish I was smart enough to remove it, but I am not.  Maybe that is something you could eliminate, for everyone including yourself.  But this is just my 0.02 so it means nothing.

well that was entertaining.

Lol.

-j

I got over 55k with stock fw just like most could have with the smartass111 or my release last year.

My argument is you replaced a factory file therefore leaving it open to any mods desired, if you would have used another file name then the situation would be looked at different by me. You have already admitted the original file was linked to others on the OS therefore replacing it leaves it open to anything under the GPL and other laws.

You left the hole I used it plain and simple. I already have it partially working on a mini. I look forward for the takedown, that wont stop it there are many servers to use where your takedown will be ignored. For the 2.0 and 2.1 versions you have no claim for a takedown all you have is you made a mistake and it cost you, under GPL once you changed the factory files you lost claim plain and simple. As I said choose different files names that aren't part of the OS as it was distributed or covered under the GPL and I wont touch it.

You want to keep commenting on my intelligence but yet I was smart enough to get past your hack, don't under estimate what others can do, I may not explain it all correctly but I can sure make things work when I need to. It's funny your crying because your hack got hacked and now you want to claim GPL and copyrights on your hack/hijack. Good luck with that one... Unethical yes, illegal or violation of GPL or copyright no.

Sadly it is difficult to have meaningful discourse when intelligence does not exist.

Following your moronic logic. Take the original firmware, delete that file, observe that things run.

Your argument is that every single thing with the same file name is the same. Can you even comprehend how ridiculous that is?

And again, like the countless other things you are wrong on, you are simply wrong on the earnings. The firmware brings in about 35 dollars usd a day.

And your argument also forgets that the factory firmware provided 42KSol/second by spec and units running my firmware have an average of 57kSol with the latest units exceeding 62Ksol.

Hopefully your intelligence level will let you see that is greater than 3%.

As far as “hiding errors” goes, you are incorrect there as usual. Go take a stock firmware and evaluate what happens in the logs vs the dashboard and you might be able to see. An “x” in the dashboard ONLY occurs when an asic COMPLETELY goes offline. Nothing is changed in that handling.

The only loophole is you managed to get your hands on a firmware that was out for about 4 hours before I realized there was a mistake in DNS handling. It was fixed in my changelogs the early morning of 10/24 and will not work on any of the 2.1 and later releases. There is literally zero “mini” functionality in the 2.0 train.

I encourage you to perform and develop your own content, but I do not believe you have that ability.

I would honestly explain how it all works if I thought you had the capacity to comprehend, but clearly you do not.

The takedowns have been submitted and I guess we will just wait for process to happen.

-j

Again, once you replace the file with a different one needed by the firmware you lost any claim regardless of the contents. You should have chosen a different file name I guess, and lcgm well, the s02 file cant run without it, and cgminer wont run without any of it, neither will the firmware OS, should have made a plugin instead of a complete disable of cgminer when you feel like disabling it or whatever you had control of. All you did was wrote a program to hijack cgminer disabling the cgminer without your modified files leaving you no legal standing, unethical yes but not illegal for me to modify it again. Your release also hides the x errors on the web status screen most the time but can be seen in the kernel logs, just to inform you. The crappy part for you is it got hijacked by itself, no new packaging just opened your "out" file as a hdd and edited it there only repack was back to a .gz otherwise its all there just as it was origionally packed in the image

And do you really think you were making people extra money?

Most machines didn't get enough improvement with individual clocking and many didn't even get a 3% increase which breaks them even with the dev fee so in the end they are mining to put money in your pocket while paying for the electric.

That's really getting the most out of their machine. The dev fee is putting about 100+ a day in your pocket which is more than most miners are making in a week.

I am sorry if you don't continue but I would rather see everyone get the most out of their machines now before the difficulty gets to a point where they are scrapping their machines. Besides the voltage increase .vs the increased profit is not good at current coin prices, raising the voltage and clocks use more electricity then you will make in profit again just putting their extra profit in your pocket. So no matter what way you do it you are always in a win win situation and the miner takes the loss.

I will be fair with you... Any new version that does not eliminate any original file from the firmware and does not hijack cgminer without being selected from the miner configuration screen I will leave alone but any modified or replaced factory os file is open game for new modifications. This time you left me a loophole next time do it different.

You know what dude, fighting with me is ridiculous since I am someone who was trying to *HELP THE COMMUNITY GET THE MOST OUT OF THEIR MINERS*.

You don't fscking understand dynamic vs. static linking. And lcgm and the .so.2 are *NOT* linked to cgminer and cannot be because cgminer is not a fscking library you fscking idiot.

And the original ".so.2" was a SHARED LIBRARY that other things would dynamically link to, you imbecile. If it was static, you wouldn't see it on the filesystem! Using the same _filename_ does not make the new contents exist under GPL as you so ignorantly and stubbornly assume.

These miners came out, purposefully gimped from the factory. I took the time to unlock them and release it to the community.

Then folk had issues with certain boards on specific batches, so I made a modification to let them get the most out of their system.

Then folk wanted voltage controls... well, you've just ensured that all future work stops because I refuse to sit here and defend against fscking idiots like yourself over and over.

My claims are on lcgm and and the the contents of the file named libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2, not the packaging. You are distributing my work in the packing you provided.

BTW, shit from idiots like yourself is why Bliss moved on also.

.. and the reason why I would have said "a billion dollars" or whatever to you is because you have been ignorantly annoying from the beginning speaking out of your ass with your posts and questions.

Good luck.

(Yeah folk, I *CAN* be an asshole, but most of the time I'm not.. and those of you who have dealt with me privately know that.)

-j

You have no rights, I am telling you, if you don't follow the GPL licensing you cannot claim any violation because then you have no rights to distribute your releases. Your work is considered a derivative work

Those who do not accept the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'd program, they may still use the software within their organization however they like, and works (including programs) constructed by the use of the program are not required to be covered by this license.

Linked to GPL file

libc.so.6 and ld-linux-armhf.so.3

Your lcgm and s02 files are also linked to cgminer which is GPL and open source

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL. You distributed GPL'd work with your modifications.

Whether you want your files proprietary or not you cannot exceed past the GPL license, the .so.2 file was static linked to cgminer therefore you have no claim your work became derivative work whether the library file was junk or not the moment you replaced it you lost any right as the file was part of the original firmware. So either you except the GPL license terms and move on or you don't accept them and pull your firmware offline claiming its all proprietary. But don't think your gonna legal bully me to remove it. I accept the GPL terms

Laugh -- there have been no threats and these paragraphs are entirely too cohesive to have been written by you.

There are 0 statically linked libraries associated with the content I named "libnss_mdns_mininal.so.2" or "lcgm".

If you are going to copy/paste something from the internet to sound smart, at least give credits. You've pasted what you have implied (by the act of not providing a source) you wrote above from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

What you have _still_ failed to comprehend is that I am not distributing modifications that fall under GPL. Further, the fact that things are split across multiple libraries and executables is specifically to avoid GPL encumbrance.

BTW, I'm still "Enjoying".

-j

You need to look harder because under GPL once you changed a static linked file your claims can disappear and the file becomes part of the GPL whether you wrote it over from scratch or not and since you mixed your code with GPL you are also suppose to supply the source code if requested. You are using GPL libraries and so on therefore under the laws and GPL license for the main codes are GPL

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.

This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution.

So threaten me with an order some more. Your software mods fall under the GPL license whether you like it or not.

Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd.

However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition.

It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you.

I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code.

You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make.

Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements.

Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners.

-j

Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.

And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.

Ok dude. You should get your system checked out for malware or viruses then... and not all of those were released and is guessing.

Regardless, the method of doing changes in memory on ARM  *IS unique* to me. Theft is theft man.

Enjoy your thread.

-j

Yup and like I said no one was trying to intrude your system it clearly shows I was attempting to download older versions. Anything else. That is not scanning that is downloading previous files you released.

Fine, here's a selection...


How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you.



-j

I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.

Glad you can lookup a ip. As I said I will swap some more and then you cant claim its yours not hard to do and perfectly legal your routines aren't hard to change and get the same results.

Me too, I'm out now.

-j

You remind me of the first person who tried to sell my firmware on ebay as their own after buying a copy from me. They too, did not understand the GPL. Further, you don't understand the difference in on-disk and in-memory modification as it relates to the GPL. That is why you "find it funny" -- because you do not understand it.

Point blank to anyone reading, it is *impossible* for him to provide the functionality he claims without theft of my work because of how my work was implemented. The only other option would be for him to produce a ground-up modification from scratch, which I am confident this person cannot do.

chipless, the methods used to "make my firmware go" are copyrighted, unique, and will be protected and defended as there is value beyond these ASICs with my work.

As far as your comment "by the time your order finds me", the internet is not anonymous Mr. Alabama.

-j

*munches on some popcorn*

Cant wait to see whats next.....

As I said things changed once you used that file plain and simple. I wont take it down and I will modify them some more to get the junk out then you cant say nothing. All by the time your order finds me, making you waste some money trying. I find it funny how you can take someone elses firmware make some changes and then call it yours but when I make a change to the same fw you cry like a baby. There are more sites then google to put it on. About you selling a license you told me a billion dollars or something like that is what it is was going to cost me.

The filename does not make the contents and you are ignorant if you cannot see that. As far as your statement of my claims or refusal to sell, unless you have approached under multiple names, you are simply lying there also about the attempt or the circumstance.

Again, if the _contents_ of my libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2 or lcgm are included in what you release in any way, shape, or form, it is theft of my intellectual property, pure and simple. The underlying abilities for ARM processors which I developed to generate these modifications are unique and have applications well beyond these miners.

I *DO* have have copyright and legal precedent here and I am politely asking that you take this down and cease and desist distributing my work. You are welcome to release whatever you want that does not include my content. I've made it clear which is my unique content ("libnss_mdns_minmal.so.2 in any firmware I have released", and "lcgm") where it is, and that you have crossed the line with it.

One last warning, I have you scanning my systems and attempting to intrude, searching my webservers for firmware and other files on 02/03, 02/08, and 02/10.

You told me to "enjoy", so I am.

-j

To make you happy maybe I will remove some more of your junk from the file then it wont be "yours" anymore. I tried doing legit business with you and you right away claimed I was trying to rip you off, I tried setting clients up with your software and you were an ass when I asked you questions, you refused to sell me a license, and so on so tell me why I should have not came up with a version then I could use. The original firmware was tied to that file so I used it, not my fault you also used that same file. As far as the mini I already have that figured out I just need to make some more changes then test it.

Again, do not trust a filename, chipless.

Absolutely nothing in my shipped libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2 has anything to do with bitmain's factory, unused, library and is 100% original code. If you had a lick of sense with this stuff you would be able to see that for yourself.

... and you won't be able to release a mini version using this tactic, so you might as well remove that lie from the top of the thread, too.

You are wrong.
You are also in the wrong.

Good day.

-j

You better look again it is in the factory Bitmain firmware.  libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2  is located in the /lib

Again, you are wrong.

libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2 is *NOT* in bitmain firmware and is in fact original code, not under the GPL. Modifying and releasing it is theft, end of story. The legal fact that your action is theft is not a matter of debate, it is a factual thing by your actions and the letter of the law. Also, Don't always trust a filename.

The act of you releasing it in this manner, in any court of law, would be considered you "claim[ing] it as [your] own", despite what your words say. It may have my name on it, but it is not my release, and you know this, and have admitted the same.

Hell, even lcgm is in fact original code, not covered by the GPL, so you releasing it in a bundle that bypasses the intention is also theft dude.

You can release all the firmware firmware without 'lcgm' and 'libnss_mdns.so.2' you want and be legally compliant. If you do anything else which includes those two, including modifying them or releasing them in any other bundle, you are in fact releasing goods as your own that are my copyright. This is not a matter of debate either.

chipless, you aren't the first I've had to cease and desist legally. You'll be the 5th.

-j

This file is released in the Bitmain firmware

libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2  ----  This file you modified and recompiled
hosts

Those are the only two files besides the web pages. And as I said I don't claim it as my own. It has your name all over it. So tell me what files you say I changed that weren't in the Bitmain firmware.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software

You started with a GPL file that was linked to a open source program. I did look into it and you have no leg to stand for this version.

Are they chip? Are you sure? You might want to take another look. This is another situation where you are simply wrong. Worse, you know you are wrong and are lying because I can tell what you've accessed and what you've modified in the image you released. (You really should look at the various timestamp types stored on a file/directory, only some of which are exposed to an 'ls -al' command). You leak a lot of OPSEC data.

You are also wrong about the rights given to an end user of GPL software, including the right to modify. And I'm telling you that you have released a modification of software that does not fall into the GPL and is my original code as your own.

This is my last response regarding your theft.

-j

The files I modified are included in the Bitmain firmware I didn't play with your lgcm file sorry. Therefore the file is in public domain and a normally released file to the public, again you used the start of someone else's work. You modified an already existing file and I modified the modified. Bottom line you made a mistake you did correct it in the 2.1 release that I can tell if that matters any.

Actually, it is significantly different. My changes are not in any of bitmain's work that otherwise is not already released (for example .html files are by default released by proxy of them being in the firmware). The things you have modified are not released, are not legally required to be released in source,  and are not public domain.

As far as bitmain goes, bitmain is in violation of the GPL by not releasing the source code to their work which is required by law.

My work was done specifically to avoid GPL and that requirement.

Again, enjoy your theft for now.

-j

Never called it my own it still says its your firmware just dev free. Don't preach to me, you took Bitmain's and the writers of cgminers firmware made some changes and call it your own. I did no different, I made a few changes and released it, with the exception of not calling it my own. You stayed 1 step ahead then I figured out possibly who and how that was happening and if I am right that member is a snitch if I am wrong then oh well

As far as the host file well when it looks for your server it don't go to it and that's all that matters. I may not explain things very well but I do get positive results.

I will wait for the day for it to stop working until then I will enjoy dev free with individual clocking.

chipless - I said you cannot reroute an IP address using the hosts file. I did not say you cannot redirect a host lookup. See, the left hand side, in this case "120.78.246.145" is the target to redirect to, while the right hand side, in this case "39.107.212.77" is the thing to redirect from.

I use the term 'redirect' here loosely because that isn't actually what is going on under the covers, but it conveys the point. An IP address as the 2nd argument ("39.107.212.77") is *NOT* valid and indicates a simple failure in comprehension of how DNS and other OS components work. If you tried to connect() (man 2 connect) to 39.107.212.77 in your example above (if it were not commented out), it would NOT go to 120.78.246.145.

That is what I'm stating, whether you comprehend the answer or not.

Also, your "thanks for helping keep things free" is hilarious when you are, in fact, stealing someone else's work that is not in the public domain and calling it your own. Work that was not free, and without that base work, you would not be able to even attempt to release this functionality.

Enjoy your theft for now.

-j

Did I hear you say your dev fee isn't working?

It is commented out with the # and that is your poolin server rerouted when active it was for testing until I found what needed to be changed this way I wasn't mining for you. You didn't post the rest blocking your servers. And yes you can reroute a connection using the host file. You seen it while I was making some changes and was working on verifying it was not dev mining. But you didn't see it for the last month+ while I was playing with it. While it was active it would reroute your dev server to a different one and mine for me instead but for the public I had to comment it out.

127.0.0.1   localhost.localdomain      localhost
#120.78.246.145  zec-bj.ss.poolin.com
#120.78.246.145  39.107.212.77
120.78.246.145  us-api1.fudd.net
120.78.246.145  fudd.net

That's the host file.... Lets not accuse me of hiding something I have no reason to your the one who hid from everyone the control you had over the miners. If you think you can shut it down I have some running now lets see what you can do to it.

In this example facebook is rerouted to the white house site
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/redirect-ip-address-using-hosts-file-51369.html

LOL, come on man.. this is from your firmware:

#120.78.246.145  39.107.212.77 in /etc/hosts?

That would not ever work, commented out or not -- you cannot redirect IP addresses in /etc/hosts. I'm continually impressed by your tenacity, even if your methods indicate a lack of comprehension.

Also, for what it's worth, I noticed someone (you) doing this a few days ago and even mentioned it on the discord... join, look at the history and see for yourself!

-j

Make sure you are honest with folk in that all you've tried to do here is redirect it to yourself.

You are also wrong about what 2.1 provides over 2.0.

... and you missed something which I'll deal with later, so enjoy it while it works.


-j

Some of you have been waiting for this …. Efudd's  Z9 Firmware Full or Mini with NO DEV FEE's..... 100% Free

This firmware takes away the control over your miner that Efudd has implemented in his newer versions. He cant shut your miner down, he cant expire your license, basically he lost his control when to put your miner in dev mode. This release has full working individual hashboard overclocking. The dev-fee has been disabled.

I have been running this on my mini's for about 8 weeks now without any problems or reboots. You will have to set the frequency after you upgrade and possibly reboot 2 times on the mini's. This release is the same as the full size release with the frequencies updated for the mini's. An updated release will be posted with working temps on the mini's as soon as I get more time to make the changes.

UPDATED 03/18/2019

***Using on a Z9 MINI ****  You must manually set the fan speed at the same speed you are running now or higher now so make a note of the RPM of your fan. You will NOT have temp's showing in the web gui. The miner will take a minute or two extra before it starts mining and the fan settles down to your set RPM.


If you find this firmware helpful please make a donation for the No-Dev file

--- Zcash ---
t1e4Dmr5RBgnWqTN2mAmZ6JzGavW7qxA4P1


** Modded Efudd's 2.0c Dev-Free **

Updated 03/18/2019

https://app.nihaocloud.com/f/479168b650f747f0adc5/?dl=1