Pool hopping... ethical or not?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Miners are predators.  By mining I make it harder for all other miners and decrease your income.    How about this,  I totally stop mining and instead of me getting 1BTC/day, all other miners give me, collectivity, 0.5BTC/day.  I save on electricity and you all get 0.5 more a day.

Honestly, what if I say we all halve our Mh/s tomorrow.  This only makes sense; we all gain.  But by your reasoning anyone who doesn't would be working with us; instead they would be trying to get more than his fair share.

Actually, tonight I will reduce my processing power in half, and anyone who doesn't is against me.  OR they realize that this prisoners dilemma is solved by defecting.

Mining exists for a reason, you know. By increasing your hashrate you are making the Bitcoin network more secure, and rewarded for it.

[1713569553]

1713569553

[1713569553]

1713569553

[CanaryInTheMine]

I see there's still plenty of pontification here...

all these arguments against hoping are totally useless.  they are your "hurt" feeling.  that's all they are.

If you want to start having a real and useful debate, let's see some Terms Of Service or agreements from pools.

If a pool ain't got one, then you all just wasting your breath.

words like believe, belief, faith, common, implied, un-implied etc... etc.. don't mean squat without set rules that miners agree to.

no agreement = no rules.

Wait a minute, why is it that pools don't have them? Hmmm.....

[JoelKatz]

I see there's still plenty of pontification here...

all these arguments against hoping are totally useless.  they are your "hurt" feeling.  that's all they are.

If you want to start having a real and useful debate, let's see some Terms Of Service or agreements from pools.

If a pool ain't got one, then you all just wasting your breath.

words like believe, belief, faith, common, implied, un-implied etc... etc.. don't mean squat without set rules that miners agree to.

no agreement = no rules.

Wait a minute, why is it that pools don't have them? Hmmm.....

This is typical. The people who defend pool hopping deny that there's such a thing as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and argue that only written rules apply to them. They claim people have no obligation to deal fairly with others and that they can make agreements in bad faith and if other people don't like it, well that's just their hurt feelings.

Well, that's not the way society works, and that's not the law. Please actually read this until you understand it:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+covenant+of+good+faith+and+fair+dealing

It has to be this way. Otherwise, lawyers would get phenomenally rich as every agreement in life would require a written contract and a single shifty sentence snuck in by one party could completely deprive the other party of the intended benefit. Agreements simply don't work that way.

This not wishful thinking or hurt feelings, it's how the real world actually works. It's "if I didn't sign it, I don't have to comply with it" that's absurd wishful thinking and in complete disagreement with how the real world, and real society, actually works.

The anti-social nature of these arguments reflects the anti-social nature of pool hopping.

[mute20]

I would say it is fine. Just like stocks no one holds all their eggs in one basket. Pool hopping isn't even a guaranteed to be successful due to the luck factor. Also if you are manually changing pools than you are spending quite a bit of time which could be served doing something else. I use slush and arsbitcoin so pool hopping doesn't effect me much.

[CanaryInTheMine]

I see there's still plenty of pontification here...

all these arguments against hoping are totally useless.  they are your "hurt" feeling.  that's all they are.

If you want to start having a real and useful debate, let's see some Terms Of Service or agreements from pools.

If a pool ain't got one, then you all just wasting your breath.

words like believe, belief, faith, common, implied, un-implied etc... etc.. don't mean squat without set rules that miners agree to.

no agreement = no rules.

Wait a minute, why is it that pools don't have them? Hmmm.....

This is typical. The people who defend pool hopping deny that there's such a thing as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and argue that only written rules apply to them. They claim people have no obligation to deal fairly with others and that they can make agreements in bad faith and if other people don't like it, well that's just their hurt feelings.

Well, that's not the way society works, and that's not the law. Please actually read this until you understand it:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+covenant+of+good+faith+and+fair+dealing

It has to be this way. Otherwise, lawyers would get phenomenally rich as every agreement in life would require a written contract and a single shifty sentence snuck in by one party could completely deprive the other party of the intended benefit. Agreements simply don't work that way.

This not wishful thinking or hurt feelings, it's how the real world actually works. It's "if I didn't sign it, I don't have to comply with it" that's absurd wishful thinking and in complete disagreement with how the real world, and real society, actually works.

The anti-social nature of these arguments reflects the anti-social nature of pool hopping.

Wow, are you kidding me?!!! did you read it yourself?  well, obviously you did, but you are completely wrong with its application/understanding.

"n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood. A lawsuit (or one of the causes of action in a lawsuit) based on the breach of this covenant is often brought when the other party has been claiming technical excuses for breaching the contract or using the specific words of the contract to refuse to perform when the surrounding circumstances or apparent understanding of the parties were to the contrary. Example: an employer fires a long-time employee without cause and says it can fire at whim because the employment contract states the employment is "at will." However, the employee was encouraged to join the company on the basis of retirement plans and other conduct which led him/her to believe the job was permanent barring misconduct or financial downturn. Thus, there could be a breach of the implied covenant, since the surrounding circumstances implied that there would be career-long employment."

You are misleading people by stating:
"The people who defend pool hopping deny that there's such a thing as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and argue that only written rules apply to them"
you are trying to say that we deny the existance of and therefore are wrong:
-implied covenant of good faith
-fair dealing
this is absurd and false.  we are not denying these concepts, BUT they don't apply here.  these legal principles are in contract law.

where's the bitcoin mining law?  where's the contract?

it is applicable to contracts.  yes, signed, executed, legal contracts that have 2 parties.  where's my mining contract?  the one I have to agree to... not some implied, assumed, verbal blah blah blah...

contract, where is it???  what word have I given? what obligation have I agreed to, show it to me since i don't recall seeing it...
show me the contract I'm breaching.  (and not the one made up in someones head)

every contract i draft, sign or execute has a good faith article in it.  that's where this covenant is from and that's its domain.  it doesn't exist without an executed contract.  that's how the real world works.

your example of the candy bar is weak and doesn't apply.  you have a problem with it, contact the store or the manufacturer.  you will get relief.

you are also confusing how society operates.  there are laws that govern society that spell things out.  there's nothing wishy washy about this.  it is not an anti-social argument.  it has nothing to do with society.  

it has everything to do with understanding the bitcoin algorithm and using this knowledge.

and that's precisely what you don't like if you really get honest with yourself.  you don't like the technical weaknes. it's that simple.

[jgraham]

Well, that's not the way society works, and that's not the law. Please actually read this until you understand it:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+covenant+of+good+faith+and+fair+dealing

Putting aside for the moment the counters that given the argument "X is unethical" is not proved by "X is illegal" or "X is part of my highly-biased sample of events in the world".  Not to mention that you have provided zero evidence for it being either the general case in society or the law where you are (see my prior comments about "gap filling").

Anyway it's very interesting that you don't seem to understand the very definition you direct people to.

an employer fires a long-time employee without cause and says it can fire at whim because the employment contract states the employment is "at will." However, the employee was encouraged to join the company on the basis of retirement plans and other conduct which led him/her to believe the job was permanent barring misconduct or financial downturn. Thus, there could be a breach of the implied covenant, since the surrounding circumstances implied that there would be career-long employment

Notice that the employer here has to take an action from which long term employment is implied during the course of dealing.   So given that you have not disclosed what further action has to take place.  It seems reasonable that you are simply asserting that the action of joining a pool is as unambiguous in usage of trade to mean "no pool hopping" as say "Hamburger" is to what one gets when they order one in North America.

If true this means at least two things:

i) You are begging the question - in other words you have no real argument for your position.  So I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop pretending like you do.
ii) Not clearly true and possibly false - since there is a number of people who do not believe this.

[JoelKatz]

Notice that the employer here has to take an action from which long term employment is implied during the course of dealing.   So given that you have not disclosed what further action has to take place.  It seems reasonable that you are simply asserting that the action of joining a pool is as unambiguous in usage of trade to mean "no pool hopping" as say "Hamburger" is to what one gets when they order one in North America.

I already addressed this in several places, with the example of the person who joins a coal mining cooperative right as they uncover a vein with the intention of leaving as soon as they have to search for the next vein.

If true this means at least two things:

i) You are begging the question - in other words you have no real argument for your position.  So I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop pretending like you do.
ii) Not clearly true and possibly false - since there is a number of people who do not believe this.

Feel free to address the argument if you like, but please stop denying it exists. I'll repeat it one more time:

Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits. A miner joins the cooperative just as they uncover a rich vein. He stays in during the easy mining, getting a share of the profits from that vein. Just as the vein is exhausted and the other miners are settling in for the hard work of exposing a new vein, he leaves them to join another cooperative that has just unearthed a rich vein. This was his plan from the beginning, and he gets a disproportionate share of the benefits relative to the amount of mining he does at the expense of the other miners.

1) Is this unethical?

2) Does it breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the miners in the cooperative?

3) If you answered "yes" to 1 or 2, how is pool hopping different?

[CanaryInTheMine]

Notice that the employer here has to take an action from which long term employment is implied during the course of dealing.   So given that you have not disclosed what further action has to take place.  It seems reasonable that you are simply asserting that the action of joining a pool is as unambiguous in usage of trade to mean "no pool hopping" as say "Hamburger" is to what one gets when they order one in North America.

I already addressed this in several places, with the example of the person who joins a coal mining cooperative right as they uncover a vein with the intention of leaving as soon as they have to search for the next vein.

If true this means at least two things:

i) You are begging the question - in other words you have no real argument for your position.  So I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop pretending like you do.
ii) Not clearly true and possibly false - since there is a number of people who do not believe this.

Feel free to address the argument if you like, but please stop denying it exists. I'll repeat it one more time:

Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits. A miner joins the cooperative just as they uncover a rich vein. He stays in during the easy mining, getting a share of the profits from that vein. Just as the vein is exhausted and the other miners are settling in for the hard work of exposing a new vein, he leaves them to join another cooperative that has just unearthed a rich vein. This was his plan from the beginning, and he gets a disproportionate share of the benefits relative to the amount of mining he does at the expense of the other miners.

1) Is this unethical?

2) Does it breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the miners in the cooperative?

3) If you answered "yes" to 1 or 2, how is pool hopping different?

This is another improper, misleading attempt.

"Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits."

such coal miner, joining/participating in a co-operative will be a party to said cooperative's agreement.  also known as a shareholder agreement of sorts.

-a legal document.  spelling things out. what's expected of the miner and what the breaches are and their penalties.

it's a signed contract.

This is also under minerals laws, EPA, labor laws, contract laws and a boat load of other federal, state and local laws.

I ask you again,  show me our mining laws and the mining contract.

Where are they?

[JoelKatz]

This is another improper, misleading attempt.

"Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits."

such coal miner, joining/participating a co-operative will be a party to said cooperative's agreement.  also known as a shareholder agreement of sorts.

-a legal document.  spelling things out. what's expected of the miner and what the breaches are and their penalties.

it's a signed contract.

This again shows the anti-social nature and absurdity of the arguments used by those who defend pool hoppers. They insist that their only obligations, legal or moral, are to comply with signed contracts. I wouldn't want to live in such a society, and thankfully, I don't.

[CanaryInTheMine]

This is another improper, misleading attempt.

"Say coal miners have a cooperative where they share in the profits."

such coal miner, joining/participating a co-operative will be a party to said cooperative's agreement.  also known as a shareholder agreement of sorts.

-a legal document.  spelling things out. what's expected of the miner and what the breaches are and their penalties.

it's a signed contract.

This again shows the anti-social nature and absurdity of the arguments used by those who defend pool hoppers. They insist that their only obligations, legal or moral, are to comply with signed contracts. I wouldn't want to live in such a society, and thankfully, I don't.

It's not absurd because it's true and it's a fact. the co-op has a contract. you can not be a part of co-op without being a party to co-op's contract.  try to join one without a contract and laws.  tell us how it goes.  tell us what non-anti-social society recognizes such a co-op.

i think maybe you want some communal or utopian examples instead? oh wait, those don't work...

what's absurd is how your dislike of a technical weakness has been contorted by you into an attempt to try to use everything that has it's roots in law and contracts to argue applicability when there's a lack of law or contract.

no it is not an anti-social nature (btw, lookup the definition since you like them so much), they (we) comply with ALL the laws of a (our) society as well.  when we don't, consequences are spelled out and are applied.  that is the society you live in.


Where are bitcoin mining laws?  where's that mining contract?

[JoelKatz]

It's not absurd because it's true and it's a fact. the co-op has a contract. you can not be a part of co-op without being a party to co-op's contract.  try to join one without a contract and laws.  tell us how it goes.  tell us what non-anti-social society recognizes such a co-op.

That's why we have the doctrine of implied agreements and covenants of good faith. Otherwise, we'd have to make perfect written agreements before we could cooperate, and that would be extremely inconvenient. Your argument that there would be a written contract that covers this makes my point -- if a written contract would cover it, and there's no written contract, then it's covered by the implied agreement. The whole purpose of implied agreements is to eliminate the necessity of written contracts.

what's absurd is how your dislike of a technical weakness has been contorted by you into an attempt to try to use everything that has it's roots in law and contracts to argue applicability when there's a lack of law or contract.

There's no lack of law or contract. Implied agreements and covenants of good faith and fair dealing are certainly part of law. And as for there being no contract, whenever people cooperate economically with expectations, there's a contract.

no it is not an anti-social nature (btw, lookup the definition since you like them so much), they (we) comply with ALL the laws of a (our) society as well.  when we don't, consequences are spelled out and are applied.  that is the society you live in.

I agree.

Where are bitcoin mining laws?  where's that mining contract?

I've already explained this to you many, many times. Whenever people agree to economic cooperation, there's a contract. It can be written, verbal, implied, or a bit of each. Again, you are being blatantly anti-social when you say "I can take advantage of others however I want, I didn't sign an agreement not to". That's not how civil society works, and you wouldn't want to live in such a society. You couldn't do anything without a written agreement, and you'd need to hire perfect lawyers to go over that contract, lest it contain a hidden clause that deprives you of the expected benefit. To argue that we actually live that way is crazy. We don't need "bitcoin mining laws" because we have a law of contract that has been developed over centuries, and it doesn't all go away just because bitcoins are new.

[organofcorti]

Getting back to the thread topic (harrumph) law is not the final arbiter of ethics, and one nation's law can be vary different to another, as can one nations sense of morals. Is there an internationally accepted set of morals? How many countries ahve similar ethical stances to your own, only varying in one particular or another?

Ethics will only be opinion until everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not (regardless of local laws) and whether or not pool hopping is ethically sound will be a moot point until the bitcoin mining community can agree on what the community's moral code entails.

If that's what we're doing here, I propose we accept the voting results and define our moral standard on this issue based on those results.

[JoelKatz]

Ethics will only be opinion until everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not (regardless of local laws) and whether or not pool hopping is ethically sound will be a moot point until the bitcoin mining community can agree on what the community's moral code entails.

This is not the best forum to go into the theory of ethics on, but that's a load of nonsense. Even the most clearly objective facts (such as that the Earth is closer to round than flat) are not universally agreed upon. That doesn't make the Earth's shape only opinion. When people largely agree on things, more interesting than the fact that they agree are the facts that cause them to agree. For example, people largely agree that the Earth is closer to round than flat because of some specific facts -- specifically, that the Earth is in fact round.

The agreement is entirely superfluous. If there is an agreement, it's the fact that underlie that agreement that are important. (Otherwise, the agreement is entirely coincidental and of no value whatsoever.) And if the facts justify whatever it is that people agree on, it doesn't particularly matter than they happen to agree on it as well.

Across cultures, people almost universally agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral. That's interesting, but if torturing children for pleasure is immoral, it's not the fact that people largely agree on it that makes it so. Whatever facts lead people to agree on it would also lead to it being in fact immoral. These facts are identifiable and testable. We do not need to resort to "belief makes it so".

[organofcorti]

This is not the best forum to go into the theory of ethics on, but that's a load of nonsense. Even the most clearly objective facts (such as that the Earth is closer to round than flat) are not universally agreed upon. That doesn't make the Earth's shape only opinion. When people largely agree on things, more interesting than the fact that they agree are the facts that cause them to agree. For example, people largely agree that the Earth is closer to round than flat because of some specific facts -- specifically, that the Earth is in fact round.

Yes, but facts are not always useful in ethics - for example just because something might be best for the majority might not be an ethical thing to do. Or we'd all be Utilitarians. There are whole groups of people who's personal moral code would conflict with yours and probably mine.

The agreement is entirely superfluous. If there is an agreement, it's the fact that underlie that agreement that are important. (Otherwise, the agreement is entirely coincidental and of no value whatsoever.) And if the facts justify whatever it is that people agree on, it doesn't particularly matter than they happen to agree on it as well.

Again with the facts. Morals are whatever the majority of a culture decide they are. Agreement is the only thing that determines what is moral. How many wives can a man have and still be a moral man?

Across cultures, people almost universally agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral. That's interesting, but if torturing children for pleasure is immoral, it's not the fact that people largely agree on it that makes it so. Whatever facts lead people to agree on it would also lead to it being in fact immoral. These facts are identifiable and testable. We do not need to resort to "belief makes it so".

Strawman, and wrong. People do not find torturing children immoral because of facts - it would be possible to describe a situation where it may be the only response to a greater evil.

But people would still find it repugnant, even if considering the facts told them it was the right thing to do. This is because it is a biologically instinctive response, not a factually considered one. What are the anti torturing facts you refer to?

Many mammals have the same biological response toward their offspring - is that fact driven, or just a biological response?

There's a very big difference between an issue will strongly affect all humans equally (damaging biological offspring) and issues that do not affect all humans equally (pool hopping, which does not have a biological base or an evolutionarily driven reason to find it repugnant).

In cases where there is no obvious (biologically instinctive) outcome and logical argument does not sway either side, then the majority should decide the accepted moral values for the community. Just like in any other community - religious or secular.

[teukon]

If you guys keep this up that poor troll's going to die from overeating.

Any idea how I can permanently remove this thread from my "updated topics" section?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Any idea how I can permanently remove this thread from my "updated topics" section?

I think the only way is to convince Theymos to switch to a forum software which has this feature. I'll support a switch for the same feature.

[organofcorti]

Any idea how I can permanently remove this thread from my "updated topics" section?

I think the only way is to convince Theymos to switch to a forum software which has this feature. I'll support a switch for the same feature.

... and for the time being, when you go to "Updated Topics" you can hit "mark all messages as read" which will get rid of the notification without you having to go to the thread concerned - as long as you don't have other unread threads there.

[JoelKatz]

Again with the facts. Morals are whatever the majority of a culture decide they are. Agreement is the only thing that determines what is moral. How many wives can a man have and still be a moral man?

So if everyone on the planet decided that slavery was moral, that would make it so? If everyone decided that torturing children for pleasure was moral, that would make it so?

Bluntly, I don't believe that you really believe this. But on the off chance that you really do, you are a monster.

I could explain why you are wrong, but it would take many pages and is way beyond the scope of this forum. But for here, suffice it to say that it is clear to me that you are lying. You are like the person who insists the sky does not look blue to them under normal day conditions. If it really doesn't, then you are broken in some way. But more likely, you are just lying because you think I cannot prove the sky looks blue.

Across cultures, people almost universally agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral. That's interesting, but if torturing children for pleasure is immoral, it's not the fact that people largely agree on it that makes it so. Whatever facts lead people to agree on it would also lead to it being in fact immoral. These facts are identifiable and testable. We do not need to resort to "belief makes it so".

Strawman, and wrong. People do not find torturing children immoral because of facts - it would be possible to describe a situation where it may be the only response to a greater evil.

Then why do people largely agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral? Magic? Coincidence?

But people would still find it repugnant, even if considering the facts told them it was the right thing to do. This is because it is a biologically instinctive response, not a factually considered one. What are the anti torturing facts you refer to?

Many mammals have the same biological response toward their offspring - is that fact driven, or just a biological response?

What you're saying is completely incoherent. I honestly have no idea how to respond to it because it's so nonsensical. The best I can do to point you towards common sense is to ask you -- instinctive response to what? (Hint: facts.)

Why do you think all these people have the same instinctive response? Coincidence? Magic? If not facts, what else is there?

[organofcorti]

Again with the facts. Morals are whatever the majority of a culture decide they are. Agreement is the only thing that determines what is moral. How many wives can a man have and still be a moral man?

So if everyone on the planet decided that slavery was moral, that would make it so? If everyone decided that torturing children for pleasure was moral, that would make it so?

Bluntly, I don't believe that you really believe this. But on the off chance that you really do, you are a monster.

I could explain why you are wrong, but it would take many pages and is way beyond the scope of this forum. But for here, suffice it to say that it is clear to me that you are lying. You are like the person who insists the sky does not look blue to them under normal day conditions. If it really doesn't, then you are broken in some way. But more likely, you are just lying because you think I cannot prove the sky looks blue.

Across cultures, people almost universally agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral. That's interesting, but if torturing children for pleasure is immoral, it's not the fact that people largely agree on it that makes it so. Whatever facts lead people to agree on it would also lead to it being in fact immoral. These facts are identifiable and testable. We do not need to resort to "belief makes it so".

Strawman, and wrong. People do not find torturing children immoral because of facts - it would be possible to describe a situation where it may be the only response to a greater evil.

Then why do people largely agree that torturing children for pleasure is immoral? Magic? Coincidence?

But people would still find it repugnant, even if considering the facts told them it was the right thing to do. This is because it is a biologically instinctive response, not a factually considered one. What are the anti torturing facts you refer to?

Many mammals have the same biological response toward their offspring - is that fact driven, or just a biological response?

What you're saying is completely incoherent. I honestly have no idea how to respond to it because it's so nonsensical. The best I can do to point you towards common sense is to ask you -- instinctive response to what? (Hint: facts.)

Why do you think all these people have the same instinctive response? Coincidence? Magic? If not facts, what else is there?

Way to quote out of order and out of context, and still not understand the point.

1. I'm lying about nothing. I never said these thing were within my moral compass, just that at different times and places different versions of morality have existed. You don't believe that I believe this? I really don't understand how you can not believe that in any given society the majority determine what is moral. Name me a culture where morality is not whatever the majority believe to be the best for their society.

2. Morality is not an unvarying unchanging thing. Slavery was considered moral, now it's not. What things do we hold to be moral now that won't be in the future?

3. Believing that people from other cultures will on occasion make choices radically different from my own does not make me a monster. Believing that all cultures make the same choices as those you deem to be correct is the sort of ignorance that leads to misunderstanding, misery and war. Some religions have specialised in this sort of thing.

4. Where's the incoherency? Animals protect their young - a valid instinctive response. Children are young humans. Most people feel a need to protect children even if not their own. People don't have think about why your example is abhorrent, they just know it to be so. Many people would have a hard time thinking of facts to explain their response. What facts would you say there are? (Hint: "it is an evil act" is not a valid fact).

5. Do you honestly believe there's no biological basis for morality? From your inability to respond I'd say yes. Is this a religious problem for you?

6. Religion shouldn't be a final arbiter of ethics for a deep thinker like you. Many religions are not cultures I'd hold up as bastions of morality.

7. Finally, your last sentence makes no sense so I can only assume I've kept you up late. Responses based on instinct are not are not responses based on an understanding of the facts. Instincts are actually responses that require no conscious comprehension of facts whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

[Vladimir]

Is taking money from a retarded guy ethical?

Is a lioness acting ethically when she kills an antelope?

I guess pool hopping is somewhere between these two.