Quote from: Confucius on October 12, 2011, 08:01:22 AM

Quote from: johnj on October 11, 2011, 02:45:10 PM

If Pool X displays they are a BTC pool, then I can submit shares to that pool for BTC. However if that pool *doesn't* display that they are merged mining, that means Pool X Op is taking the shares I paid for (with electricity) and secretly profiting.

You're right. I would consider that unfair, under some circumstances. However both circumstances a still unethical (advertising)

If I saw no purpose to owning an alternative coin, yet they could get those coins as a side-effect of me looking for BTC, and the pool did not advertise this, they can have the shit that I produce, so to speak. - This is a fair scenario. Unethical advertisement practices however

If however, for any reason I thought it might be worth just keeping the alternative coins (e.g. for some crazy reason other people want alternative coins, you have them. use/sell them. ), yet the pool I was mining at didn't advertise they were keeping the coins I found as a side-effect of looking for BTC, I WOULD BE MAD - unfair, unethical

If you would discard all but certain outputs from your inputs, why be so greedy to not let others take which you do not want?

Meaning, from your input of hashing power, you only want BTC and would discard any other coins. Why be so greedy to not let others have the alternative coins you would discard?

You may have to be brutally honest about your perception of alternative coins values. Are they really worthless? Worth discarding? If they exist and other people want them, perhaps I want them just to sell/use them?

But yes I have not challenged the idea that its unethical advertisement/operations however you put it.
Unfair, to me, in this circumstance is different.

Thinking really critically, if I wanted the alternative coins just for the purpose of discarding/deleting them, and the pool I mined at did not advertise I was also hashing for these alternative coins, it would be unfair. But is it? The only reason I want them is to discard them?

I'm still failing to see the essential root of the anger and feeling of unfairness that people have about a pool operator secretly mining and keeping namecoins. Why am I in such a minority here?

Do people somehow feel that the hashes they create are their own intellectual property!? Do you feel that by submitting a share to a pool that you are only licensing them to use that share for a certain purpose and that them using that share for any other unadvertised purpose is unethical? How can one think that they have a right to expect that, especially without specifically getting the pool operator to agree to such terms. There is nothing artistic which is added so certainly copyright cannot apply.

It's hard to find a perfect analogy but this is pretty close:

Let us suppose that the PrimeGrid (distributed CPU large prime finding project) starts paying users bitcoins for their CPU time. The deal is that a sufficiently large prime is worth 200 BTC to be shared between the contributers.

The people running the project publish all of the primes that they find.

The people running the project secretly use some of the primes found in their encryption software which they sell for dollars.

Would most of you be angry at the the project owners for this because they didn't advertise that they were using your CPU power for some personal gain? Would you feel entitled to your share of those dollars despite the fact that no such deal was ever made? If you found a particularly large prime would you feel that you owned it and should be able to collect a royalty on its use?