Quote from: theotherme on October 08, 2015, 07:02:55 AM

... can't even find in your way-too-long message the part which concerns me Grin

anyhow.... I don't assume that people are bad or good, just greedy and there are many excuses when it comes to justify removing fees or stuff like that. (electricity, too expensive, profit not good enough, dev too greedy, well anything can fit here: my cat eat too much..., ....placeholder-for-your-best -excuse.... etc... ).
And it is like hacked software, nobody who use them know how to remove protection but still...

That's what happens when you're discussing things of merit. Just look for the quote with your name in it and don't read the rest, or read the rest. The messages themselves are't that long.

I think most people would say being greedy is bad, in many ways. We're just playing semantics here though. Not everyone is greedy or feels as though they don't want to pay or a product they receive. Not everyone pirates movies or video games either, direct comparison to another digital product that's easy to pirate.

Quote from: sp_ on October 08, 2015, 11:24:27 AM

You will wait until your lyra2v2 kernal is not profitable anymore, and then you release it. Just like you did with Neoscrypt.

Similar to to the Bitcoin ASIC producers. They will produce, mine and then sell the used ASIC's before the profit is gone. In the end the small miners will always loose..
Closed source fee based miner with a small fee. (2%) to cover the developmentcosts could work..
But gpl licencing could make this alot of work for only 2%
To earn anything the kernals needs to be the fastest in the world.. (alot of work

Yup, kernel production for GPUs is almost synonymous with ASICs when they were released. The amount of investment to produce them is quite a bit less though and they're easy to reproduce (there is no cost in making more then one copy). That's why I'm pushing hard to make sure they don't end up that way, by crowd sourcing the continued development with a miner fee.

Quote from: pallas on October 08, 2015, 01:00:38 PM

Quote from: MaxDZ8 on October 08, 2015, 12:53:44 PM

Quote from: t-nelson on October 07, 2015, 06:00:14 PM

The only solution is a completely new, closed source, fee-based miner with completely new kernels written in isolation from the specs. The resulting binaries would further need to be copy protected to dissuade reverse-engineering and binary patching. How many people do you think would trust that?

Not necessarily.
My miner is moving towards being fully data-driven and so far everything is either MIT or zlib. In theory I would be fully for zlib but for a reason or the other I ended up with MIT. So there is (will be) full source accessibility, ability to rebuild privately, fully legal to redistribute as the kernels can be plugged in as you plug in a new map in a game.
To be completely honest the whole point of this message is to ask you to take a look at the license.txt file I've used as I'm only about 99% sure it's compliant right now.

can you incorporate a miner fee in the kernel? I guess not... nor you can avoid someone remove the whole fee code in the miner because it's opensource...

Already addressed this:

Quote from: bensam1231 on October 08, 2015, 06:08:11 AM

Quote from: t-nelson on October 07, 2015, 06:37:27 PM

Quote from: sp_ on October 07, 2015, 06:30:41 PM

There is another option. Sell the compiled gpu kernals in a binary format:
(Like wolf0's sgminer .bin files)

This will be linux compatible, and the user can use a modified ccminer without gpu-code.

No Licesence issues, if the kernals are written from scratch.. (They should if you want to optimize them)

-- SNIP--

Dynamically loading non-GPL code into GPL code is legal grey area. Not that there's any precedent for any of this stuff.

It also does nothing to address the issue of the fee being removed.

Very interesting...

What if you used the module approach and picked more plugin pieces, not just the kernels. You can wall off the majority of the open source code on one side and then make a blackbox for the 'tasty bits' like the kernels. All you would have to do is write the interface between the two, which wouldn't really matter that much if someone copies. You could do more then the kernels inside the box and add things like a miners fee. You would just have to make a API or a standard interface of some kind between the two.

Quote from: bathrobehero on October 08, 2015, 11:26:35 PM

Inside information? No, I'm a solominer in every translation of the term and even though I've tried to gather a handful of reputable miners to form a coalition of miners multiple times (look a few hundred pages back, lol) for the sole purpose of sharing the most profitable coins/algos, it never gained any momentum so I'm as alone as I could ever be. I just simply spend way too much time on researching coins.

No one would do something like that as part of getting ahead as a miner is finding profitable coins no one is mining to mine them before everyone else hops on the train.

By extension I'm doing the next best thing to this, which is trying to get developers on the same page and offering rewards for their work so we're all getting the same profit across the board, instead of a handful of really rich miners getting rich off of private kernels they can afford (or employing developers to make them).

Guys, what I'm suggesting by no means is a infallible system or one without disadvantages, but I think the advantages for everyone (except the assholes living it large with lots of money) far outweigh them. The people who directly oppose such a system are the ones with something to lose, which are those already milking the private kernel sector with their fat wallets (and I suppose the developers making them).

We just need some data points to get things rolling. I definitely wouldn't mind a 2% miner fee for a continually developed miner as long as it stays profitable and kept up with. CCminer already does this.

Quote from: joblo on October 09, 2015, 01:25:10 AM

If someone is spending a lot of time researching the best coin to mine the motivation is simply for profit.
Otherwise they would pick based on a catchy name or some philisophical reason (Cannabis coin anyone?).
Mining for the most part is profit motivated with exceptions such as yourself who have other interests in
specific coins.

There is, however, a certain gambling appeal to crypto mining, particularly in solo mining where luck
has a larger effect.

There are multiple fulltime jobs when it comes to cryptos which are already starting to emerge. Day traders which play the market, developers who make software (kernels), coin finders who have to dig a lot in order to find niche coins which are worth mining, and miners which control the hardware. They are independent of each other, but can be combined. You only have so much time to do different things.

I have a full time job in addition to mining, so I can't spend all day looking through forums for a coin. I used to, but with the rise of Nicehash (which happened some time last year), it basically obliterated my ability to push my miners on niche coins. Anyone can rent hash now and mine out coins no one knows about, so the information is much more important then the hardware for that.