Quote from: Borzoi on October 17, 2012, 10:27:42 PM

Quote from: wizkid057 on October 17, 2012, 10:21:31 PM

Quote from: Borzoi on October 17, 2012, 10:16:46 PM

Quote from: wizkid057 on October 17, 2012, 10:13:47 PM

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie. 700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

This is exactly what I've been saying. The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place.

Does not have to be illegal or shady. Could be ASIC of his own. If I can afford ASIC run, he can, especially if he has mined many bitcoins with improved bitstreams. Could also have access to better FPGAs with more gates that better to suit algorithmic approach.

Think if BFL mined instead of selling.

First, none of this has anything to do with opensourcing the bitstreams or not. Regardless of how much hardware he has personally, this wouldn't change either way. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Second, BFL does mine on unsold hardware prior to shipping to customers, and also if they didn't sell hardware they wouldn't have the money from poor pre-order fools to make any hardware to mine with themselves.

Quote from: MrTeal on October 17, 2012, 10:29:26 PM

or c) He feels the IP has value outside just the amount of commission he might make, and he might want to leverage it for something else.

Just because MS isn't selling Windows XP anymore doesn't mean they're going to GPL the source if you cut them a cheque for a couple thousand bucks.

That's the problem though. This particular IP's purpose is to generate profit directly. Therefore, the IP actually doesn't have any other value outside the amount of commission he would make with it unless it is sold entirely, such as through the bounties offered. That's the point. The only way it would have an increased value to the creator is if it is somehow generating more profit than we're led to believe. Regardless of how someone may feel about their IP, it's worthless if in the end there is little to nothing to show for it.

You can't compare Windows XP to this bitstream. Windows XP was successfully sold to millions at a profit already, and XP licenses are still valid. Windows XP has turned a profit for MS, so, they have no reason to accept a "couple thousand bucks" to open source it. The difference here is, assuming this bitstream legitimately does what we're told as advertised and nothing more, then the creator has not profited from it and will not profit from it more than the value of the up front bounties offered to simply release it in source form.