Quote from: Blazedout419 on October 21, 2014, 02:00:53 AM

Quote from: jjdub7 on October 21, 2014, 12:46:19 AM

Quote from: dogie on October 20, 2014, 10:08:46 PM

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss your concerns in the thread.]

Dogie, I see that you won't be monitoring this, but I'll ask anyway in case you check back and deem it worth a response. What would AM have to do in the coming rating cycle to improve back into the 90-95 ratings? Where were the ratings points lost, and why does AM have a 4/10 for ethics?

Just scroll down and read the change log...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691.msg5035170#msg5035170

Thanks. Must've just scrolled right over it without seeing. The ethics ratings make sense, I guess...no way to know if they're mining with customers' hardware. No such thing as being too careful after BFL.

Dogie - However, shouldn't there be a distinction between manufacturers who mine on their own private pools (e.g. KNCminer or BFL with Eclipse MC) and those who distribute their hashrate among the public pools? Mining in the public pools creates a (perhaps unintentional but still significant) positive externality to benefit all miners by lowering the variance of payouts and reducing their risk. Can you refine the ethics rubric on your rating scale to reflect this distinction? Or do you not consider it to be a differentiating factor? (I'll re/x-post to see if I can tie in a reply.)

-dub