Article 2,Section 1, Articles of Federation of BU + Closed Source Patch!?

[Holliday]

Users and miners Several pool operators hate your Blockstream roadmap THAT much want more control over the network ...BU hashpower still rising even after 2 node crash events.

FTFY!

[jonald_fyookball]

Users and miners Several pool operators hate your Blockstream roadmap THAT much want more control over the network ...BU hashpower still rising even after 2 node crash events.

FTFY!

last time I checked, miners can choose any pool they want.

[Holliday]

Users and miners Several pool operators hate your Blockstream roadmap THAT much want more control over the network ...BU hashpower still rising even after 2 node crash events.

FTFY!

last time I checked, miners can choose any pool they want.

Last time I checked hash rate providers would provide hash rate to a pool that charged a fee because it had less variance instead of earning more bitcoins at a smaller pool with less fee or no fee.

I spent 3 years on this forum trying to get hash rate providers to make better choices in order to promote a healthy Bitcoin network. What did they do? All go to one pool until it has > 50% of the network.

So, sorry if I don't really expect great things from hash rate providers.

[Sadlife]

They must be pretty embarrassed to have been consecutively attack just after launching there software and now they're are closing there source code cause they realize how buggy their code is.
They should really let the experts handle the job, bitcoin's algorithm has become extremely complicated they should really let it open source for the community to help them and find bugs that might cause trouble in the future.

[jbreher]

Of which specific libraries was this a license violation?

QT.

You mean Qt? Isn't that mostly LGPL 3.0? In what way is the license violated?

[gmaxwell]

You mean Qt? Isn't that mostly LGPL 3.0? In what way is the license violated?

You may not distribute a LGPL program as part of a single static binary without the corresponding source to the whole thing or object files for the parts so that you could link with a modified version of the LGPLed component.

[jbreher]

You mean Qt? Isn't that mostly LGPL 3.0? In what way is the license violated?

You may not distribute a LGPL program as part of a single static binary without the corresponding source to the whole thing or object files for the parts so that you could link with a modified version of the LGPLed component.

Well, without providing the source upon reasonable demand. Did you make a reasonable demand for the source? Was it rebuffed?

Do you suppose all those digital toasters available at WalMart, with embedded graphics built upon Qt, ship with a full copy of the source code in the box? Or do the manufacturers just summarily fulfill requests for source in a reasonable fashion?

But in the moment, it's a good thing all the source is available on the repository, hunh?