[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 #

[k9quaint]

...I can't quite agree with him, that's a blatant breach of agreement...

Incorrect. There was and still is no agreement to provide Coiledcoins. There is no agreement promising not to use the completed POWs for other calculations besides those promised to the users.

By HIM, I meant Luke.   I'll try to be very precise here:

1. Eligius is a merged-mining-enabled Bitcoin-Namecoin mining pool.
2. A pool is an service which helps miners to do their job (mine Bitcoins and Namecoins) by splitting the task of mining into smaller work units. By definition this is what a pool does and is the only thing a pool does.
3. Luke agrees to provide his pool's services to the miners.
4. The miners agree to process the work units received from Eligius, thereby effectively authorizing Luke to use their computer systems' resources strictly for the purpose of mining Bitcoins and Namecoins.
5. However, Luke has allegedly been using his users' hashing power for his own, private purposes.
6. Thus, even if at no cost to the miners, Luke is violating the agreement with his miners by misusing the pool (using it outside of the agreed-upon scope).
7. His pool's use of the miners' resources is therefore unauthorized.
8. Unauthorized use of a computer system is considered a crime.

By continuing the alleged attacks, Luke puts himself in a very dangerous position should any Eligius miner choose to litigate.
That's why I advise Luke to cease any alleged attacks using Eligius' resources.

1. It can also be CLC merged mining pool as can every other BTC pool in existence. This is the mathematical definition of CLC, any BTC miner can also produce CLC with no additional work. Whether or not a pool chooses to take advantage of this is up to the operator. Whether or not the pool operator chooses to pass on the rewards is up to the operator.

2. Why is it the only thing? Is there a contract that states it will not have any alternative sources of revenue (like advertising)? Providing work and rewards is the minimum a pool must do, there is no upper bound (explicit or implicit) as to a pools functionality. That is like saying the Google is search, and only search, and they made Gmail and now I am FURIOUS because my AOL mail account is less valuable!

3. The miners agree to use Luke's service, in return for some portion of the rewards. The size and shape of that portion is entirely up to the pool operator. Too little rewards, fewer miners. Too great of a reward, pool costs too much to maintain.

4. Luke does not use their systems resources at all. They ask for work, the pool provides the work, they complete the work, they return the completed work, the pool checks the work and gives them their reward. The only thing the pool does is provide work, check the completed work, and provide the reward. The pool does no calculations and runs no code on the users machine.

5. Luke did not "use" their hashing power. He used the results of their hashing power. The result is information. The hashing power is the conversion of electricity into information. No hashing power was used above and beyond that required to hash for BTC.

6. There was no agreed upon scope as you state it. There was no EULA and no official statement as to what services would be provided.

7. Again, he did not use the pools resources. He used the result of the pools resources. The result is information. The pools resources are the conversion of electricity into information.

8. He executed no code on any of his users computers. All information from the users of the pool was given to the pool in exchange for fixed rewards of BTC & NMC. All BTC & NMC rewards were paid. Further use of that information was not covered by any agreement between the users and the pool owner. Furthermore, since Luke created the blocks in question, he owns the copyright on them. The users are paid for the shares they submit. Nothing more than that.

As to litigation. One must prove harm. Since Luke currently controls all CLC coins in accordance with the CLC spec, I don't see how he broke any laws. If anyone should be litigated against, it is the creator of CLC for making exaggerated claims as to the security and viability of the CLC blockchain.

[1713305111]

1713305111

[1713305111]

1713305111

[1713305111]

1713305111

[1713305111]

1713305111

[rjk]

 How many real $$ has Luke mined in I0coin, ixCoin, and CLC, using Eligius pool power, that has not been shared back to
the Eligius Pool members ?

Is this in any way relevant? Those coins are nearly worthless and there is a much bigger matter at hand.

Those coins happen to be worth even less than previously, because of this use of pool resources to attack those chains and reduce the market for their coins to shambles. So yes, it is somewhat relevant. The miners should have received their share of I0coin, ixCoin, and CLC instead of him using them to attack the markets for them and also gain monetarily by that. The sticking point is that there is no way to sign up to receive those altchains, even if you wanted to.

[Littleshop]

As to litigation. One must prove harm. Since Luke currently controls all CLC coins in accordance with the CLC spec, I don't see how he broke any laws. If anyone should be litigated against, it is the creator of CLC for making exaggerated claims as to the security and viability of the CLC blockchain.

Right now, as nobody has terms of service or any licensing agreements on this stuff I do not see what the claim would be.  On the other hand if CLC started a new chain, and put a terms of service on their software which precluded things like mining blank blocks, attempting to control the network and modifying the software do make other peoples use of it fail, Luke would be probably be breaking US computer crime laws if he did a similar act.  Now I doubt any DA would act on something like this as it is uncharted territory, but it could happen. 

[DiabloD3]

...he genuinely does seem to believe that whatever other things he does with his pool are irrelevant to miners so long as they get their Bitcoins.

I can't quite agree with him, that's a blatant breach of agreement.
Miners mine at Eligius with the assumption that their hashing power is being exclusively used for Bitcoin (and since merged mining was introduced, Namecoin) mining.
Any other usage of the hashing power is simply unauthorized.

Please think the situation over once more Luke.

Incorrect. There was and still is no agreement to provide Coiledcoins. There is no agreement promising not to use the completed POWs for other calculations besides those promised to the users.

Technically there doesn't have to be. Every additional merged mined pool does not decrease the hash power used on Bitcoin. Luke merely should add the ability for users to acquire the output of the merged mining and it legitimizes it.

[imsaguy]

...he genuinely does seem to believe that whatever other things he does with his pool are irrelevant to miners so long as they get their Bitcoins.

I can't quite agree with him, that's a blatant breach of agreement.
Miners mine at Eligius with the assumption that their hashing power is being exclusively used for Bitcoin (and since merged mining was introduced, Namecoin) mining.
Any other usage of the hashing power is simply unauthorized.

Please think the situation over once more Luke.

Incorrect. There was and still is no agreement to provide Coiledcoins. There is no agreement promising not to use the completed POWs for other calculations besides those promised to the users.

Technically there doesn't have to be. Every additional merged mined pool does not decrease the hash power used on Bitcoin. Luke merely should add the ability for users to acquire the output of the merged mining and it legitimizes it.

Complete disagreement with you here.

Luke should made it clear to his users what he's using _their_ computing power for,
which has absolutely not been the case, and his double-using his pool's computing
power via merged mining is the only explanation possible (unless you believe that
the redneck lowlife actually has a couple of TH/s of computing power hidden in a
shed in his backyard).

If I rent my car to someone, I'd like to know if he used it to attack a bank, independent
of the fact that he's paying the rental fee: I'd be rather unlikely to rent the car a second
time.

He is abusing his users and betraying their trust, pure and simple.

Excellent example..

If you loan your car to someone, you can't ask them how they used it after they used it and then get upset to find out they used it for something you don't approve of.  If you loan out your car and don't want it used for something, you need to stipulate BEFORE hand.

[sadpandatech]

Excellent example..

If you loan your car to someone, you can't ask them how they used it after they used it and then get upset to find out they used it for something you don't approve of.  If you loan out your car and don't want it used for something, you need to stipulate BEFORE hand.

ahh, good ol morality questions..

See, the flaw in that logic is that when loaning to someone you 'trust' you would not feel the need to ever have to ask such questions...

[imsaguy]

Excellent example..

If you loan your car to someone, you can't ask them how they used it after they used it and then get upset to find out they used it for something you don't approve of.  If you loan out your car and don't want it used for something, you need to stipulate BEFORE hand.

ahh, good ol morality questions..

See, the flaw in that logic is that when loaning to someone you 'trust' you would not feel the need to ever have to ask such questions...

That isn't a flaw.  Just because you trust someone, doesn't mean you are going to agree on everything 100%.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Excellent example..

If you loan your car to someone, you can't ask them how they used it after they used it and then get upset to find out they used it for something you don't approve of.  If you loan out your car and don't want it used for something, you need to stipulate BEFORE hand.

ahh, good ol morality questions..

See, the flaw in that logic is that when loaning to someone you 'trust' you would not feel the need to ever have to ask such questions...

Trust but VERIFY.  That is why contracts exist.  Mining is an economic activity.  If miners feel that there should be limits on how their hashes (not hashing power) is used then it should be contracted.  Barring a contract you should have no expectation of what the hashes are used for.   

The only thing the pool has "contracted" (in an informal sense) if how much the rewards are, how much fees are, and how the rewards are split.

[DiabloD3]

...he genuinely does seem to believe that whatever other things he does with his pool are irrelevant to miners so long as they get their Bitcoins.

I can't quite agree with him, that's a blatant breach of agreement.
Miners mine at Eligius with the assumption that their hashing power is being exclusively used for Bitcoin (and since merged mining was introduced, Namecoin) mining.
Any other usage of the hashing power is simply unauthorized.

Please think the situation over once more Luke.

Incorrect. There was and still is no agreement to provide Coiledcoins. There is no agreement promising not to use the completed POWs for other calculations besides those promised to the users.

Technically there doesn't have to be. Every additional merged mined pool does not decrease the hash power used on Bitcoin. Luke merely should add the ability for users to acquire the output of the merged mining and it legitimizes it.

Complete disagreement with you here.

Luke should made it clear to his users what he's using _their_ computing power for,
which has absolutely not been the case, and his double-using his pool's computing
power via merged mining is the only explanation possible (unless you believe that
the redneck lowlife actually has a couple of TH/s of computing power hidden in a
shed in his backyard).

If I rent my car to someone, I'd like to know if he used it to attack a bank, independent
of the fact that he's paying the rental fee: I'd be rather unlikely to rent the car a second
time.

He is abusing his users and betraying their trust, pure and simple.

But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.

[rjk]

But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.

But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.

[DiabloD3]

But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.

But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.

That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.

[rjk]

But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.

But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.

That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.

Some of them did have value, until he spent them on an exchange and reduced said value to nil.

[DiabloD3]

But not to the extent that is being claimed. The way merged mining works is when I give 400 mhash to the pool, that 400 mhash goes to Bitcoin AND namecoin AND whatever else without diminishing the original 400 that went to Bitcoin. He can merge mine 9000 other alt chains, and I still get my 400 mhash worth of Bitcoin shares.

But are you getting your 400mhash worth of altcoins? No, he is keeping them. Lame.

That implies said altcoins actually have value, of course. He could setup signed message shit for the rest of the alt chains just like he did for nmc, but the other chains simply have no value.

Some of them did have value, until he spent them on an exchange and reduced said value to nil.

That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.

[rjk]

That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.

Sure it would drop to zero if you obtained all the coins from the profits of having a Massive percentage of the mining power, and dumped them all at once.

[DiabloD3]

That means they had no value to begin with. If BTC dropped to $0 every time I sold some, I wouldn't bother with BTC to begin with.

Sure it would drop to zero if you obtained all the coins from the profits of having a Massive percentage of the mining power, and dumped them all at once.

Yeah, but whats the difference between him doing it all at once or all of us doing it all at once? Do we even know how much he got? If it was less than 10BTC, hell, that just paid for the server for a month or two.

[Luke-Jr]

Eligius-Ra, the new server, is online the same host and everything, ready for the moment we get to a switchover point. However, Eligius-Su has been finding short blocks, taking it further away. If miners wish to donate the rest of the buffer to me, they can switch their miners to use generous.mining.eligius.st to begin using Eligius-Ra early. When/if Eligius-Su's hashrate drops off to under 100 GH or so due to people moving to Eligius-Ra, I will take that as a vote to donate the buffer, and shutdown Eligius-Su, replacing it with Eligius-Ra. Either way, don't forget to update your Artefact2 stats links to use /7/ instead of /5/

[BkkCoins]

So why is the reward per share bouncing all over the place now? Am I mistaken in thinking it's supposed to be a fixed rate per share?

[Luke-Jr]

So why is the reward per share bouncing all over the place now? Am I mistaken in thinking it's supposed to be a fixed rate per share?

http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS

Long story short, if the pool doesn't have enough money for PPS, it's basically proportional, but will try to make up the difference in the future short blocks. Long-run, it will average out to normal PPS prices.

[fizzisist]

Eligius-Ra, the new server, is online the same host and everything, ready for the moment we get to a switchover point. However, Eligius-Su has been finding short blocks, taking it further away. If miners wish to donate the rest of the buffer to me, they can switch their miners to use generous.mining.eligius.st to begin using Eligius-Ra early. When/if Eligius-Su's hashrate drops off to under 100 GH or so due to people moving to Eligius-Ra, I will take that as a vote to donate the buffer, and shutdown Eligius-Su, replacing it with Eligius-Ra. Either way, don't forget to update your Artefact2 stats links to use /7/ instead of /5/

Can you explain a bit more what this is about? Why did you need to switch over? What is the buffer? The SMPPS buffer? Now that we've switched to Ra, did that happen because people moved to 'generous' and was the buffer donated?

[Luke-Jr]

Why did you need to switch over?

While I can clean out old shares from the core database, the webserver still requires a full history of shares for active servers. This copy of the shares had grown to be 400 GB, and disk space doesn't grow forever. I figured it prudent to start over while we had the opportunity.

What is the buffer? The SMPPS buffer?

Yes, that buffer.

Now that we've switched to Ra, did that happen because people moved to 'generous' and was the buffer donated?

The buffer was exhausted. Due to timing, I ended up with 0.20 BTC leftover. I don't consider this amount worth the time trying to figure out how to split it up.