Lol... sometimes it is good to give back. I have made plenty of profit from the various dev's that have built c/sgminer, and if I can patch an annoying bug with a single line, I would prefer to honor the open source nature of the crypto communities by sharing my fix. If someone wants to pay (or tip) me for the time it took to debug this, I will be appreciative. But I don't see the need to demand compensation.
I am happy, on principle, to have offered this freely.
If that were really true, then you would have given your hacky patch away freely four days ago when you had it, but instead you made a point to tell everyone you that had it but refused to share as it was giving you an advantage -- in essence gloating and holding it out over everyone. And you are only making this statement now to save face in what you have since likely realized was a poor decision to disclose,
and now begging for tips for doing so. Say what you want about me, but I am direct in my approach. You are transparent in your attempts to manipulate, but I would bet that you don't even know you're even doing it.
My patch is hacky and I don't plan to publish it. Besides, right now it is giving me an advantage... why would I share when you have made this system competitive instead of fair/proportional?
And by the way, yours is not a comprehensive fix, as I nearly certain that you already know as you called it hacky. As you were so concerned earlier about how changing extranonce1 requires the briefest interruption in mining to reconnect stratum, how do you feel that your patch requires some mining downtime too, however minimal, though longer than former extranonce1 issue?