The software this thread is about intercepts and alters the packets (on the machine it's running on) to circumvent the devfee. the altered packets use a worker of "x" - of course anyone could show whatever they want by also having x as a worker name--which is why I trust my own stats rather than those someone posts.

I am a lot of things, but a sheep isn't one of them.

And again, WTF are you doing using the software then? Why would you use the software if that's the case? Is it because it provides some benefit to you over other software? If so, that is reason enough to accept the terms. If you don't agree with the terms you don't have to use the software. That's pretty simple.

1. Theft is theft. If you don't agree with the fees, the right thing to do would be not to use the software rather than to steal it through subverting the fees as it is licensed with. It is the same as stealing from a store.
2. Even if it was 6% that the software is taking, I earn considerably more than that comparable to other options I've tested on my hardware. For the hardware where that isn't the case, I use other options.

So you don't pay for what you can get for free. Does that extend to everything else in life? You walk into the store and happen to be able to get away with walking out with some items, you just steal them because you can? Sounds like you are morally challenged, at best. The offence in that doesn't come from being a fanboy of some software, but I'll take that attempted insult since I am a fan of well made products that help me make more money.

Seems the right thing to do then if you think the "fees are ridiculously high" would be to not use the software.

Or is it that Claymore's software is somehow better than other options?

People like to complain about how greedy some developer is whilst it is really just projection of their own greed.

Which is worse really? Setting a known fee for a product or intentionally circumventing that known fee. I say the latter. It's downright theft really. No one forces anyone to use specific software and no one forces anyone to accept the terms of the license.

And of course the "developer" of the "nodevfee" software plugs donation addresses into it—seems like more greed shining through. More greed there, expecting to be paid for ripping others off.

 --
I've done a good bit of testing and so far claymore is my best option. I am greedy and openly admit such. Therefore I see it in my best interest to use the software within the terms provided, incenting continued development and support of the software. So far the fees are lower than the increased work. Enough so actually to cover pool fees + a bit of donation to the pools as well. I'm still a couple of percent ahead that way.

Jackwagons doing things like this could cause the developer to increase fees, implement more sophisticated controls, or even cease development altogether. But hey, he made an extra $2 a month or so, who cares if it hurts anyone else, is unethical, illegal, and all those pesky details?

I'm not ragging on anyone really, just throwing my opinion out on the issue.

1. On the software being upfront, that is typical of any proprietary software - the point is to protect the code and such, not to share it. Regarding AV flagging it, that is typical of every mining software I've used so far. Even source code from open source software is flagged sometimes. The reason for that I believe is due to a handful of people using mining software illicitly on unauthorized machines with things like botnets, putting it on institutional or workplace systems, etc. It's not unique to Claymore's software at all. Since mining of crypto currencies is still a relatively small slice of the market share of AV software users it's easiest for them to just block it all.

(on my windows 10 machines I can download it. But I don't use microsoft's proprietary AV/defender most of the time.)

It's up to us to decide if we trust the software devs whether proprietary or open source. I don't personally know enough about software to determine what is safe on my own, I'm dependant on either trusting the developer or the community around it. Due diligence is always appropriate. I relied on feedback from here to decide upon trying cm and other options.

2. No idea if that's the case at all. I don't go by the hash rates reported by any software - except for in-house comparisons of configs and such. What I go by is what I'm paid for in accepted shares and over a semi-long period of time. At least several days of sustained use. In those cases Claymore has outperformed other options for me, so far.

3. To what degree is whatever is agreed upon by the parties involved. In the case of Claymore's software the terms are set out pretty clearly - the software is free to use but has a resource share to pay a percentage of it's use. Which can also be disabled on at least some of the versions whilst also reducing it's efficacy. It clearly states all that and says not to use if not in agreement. Legally, and to me ethically, that is clear that if I don't like it I just don't use it.

Yes, to my knowledge it's the only software that supports dual mining. I suspect that won't last though and it would be a great area of R & D for some devs to tackle. =)
For me, I also use the cryptonight GPU versions of claymore. It does about 8% better than any other option I've found on my hardware, so more tan a 5% increase after any fees. And again, that's going by what I'm actually paid for in accepted shares over time.

All that said, as I stated before, I don't care enough to even attempt to stop others from doing whatever hey want either way. I'm just stating my position on it along with why. If the rights owner cares enough it's up to them to deal with it.

I don't mean that a bit of coding is a lot of effort in and of itself, just using an expression - though the code isn't the only thing here, there is testing, concept, the discussion, the git repository etc. - devoted to subverting someone else instead of competing.

I'm sure you are correct too that the income likely wont be severely affected. It's just principle for me, if I don't like the terms the proper action would be to use something else. In my experience, though limited, the speed increase in the software is about 2-3x what the fees for using it are. Still a net win for me.

As for forced fees, open source, etc. that reasonable, but anyone can make that choice when developing the software and when deciding what to use. If we don't like the software being proprietary or the implementation we can use something else.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I only wanted to through in my two cents on the subject. I wouldn't even care to try stopping anyone either way but I think it would be much better to compete with different ideas and such than to intentionally subvert something one doesn't like.

Such effort and trouble to skip a lousy 1-2% fee. Imagine if people simply put as much effort into producing competing software with less/no dev fee.

I'll stick with the original and allow the fee so as to encourage further development & innovation.