Oh yeah? The whole thing stopping this is a license agreement the majority of developers don't even respect as they take the code from open source miners and use it in their private ones anyway? ...
bensam, if "private miner" is not published, than it is not violating open source license. As soon it is published in any way, than source code should be published as well. Nobody is breaking rules here sending closed binaries over private channels. BTW, I'm also for optimized miner with fee, but devs already declared it's too much hassle doing it from scratch.
I think you don't understand the license if you think you can profit off someones work as long as it's not 'public'. It still counts, its just not enforceable in anyway unless someone who receives the miner initiates it. When they talk about 'private work' that means you don't share it with anyone, not you don't share it with anyone publicly. Open licensing mainly refers to profiting off other peoples work though. That still happens even if it's not public, developers with private miners who sell them are already violating the open license, but this obviously isn't their area of forte, the only reason it's come up recently is because people are looking to use it as a excuse.
As I mentioned already,
Quote
All of that could easily be programmed in, it's just someones address, or it could divy it up on the receiving end of the payments, which would probably be easiest.
easily programmed, this is where you are wrong (and I am not speaking about the logic)... it isn't easy at all in the sense you cannot just put an address and get the coins, you need to gives address/username/password for every single pool and every single coin.For solo, it can't even work (at least not with getwork), I think it is possible to do something with gbt though...