Z9 Series Full and Mini Modded Efudd NO-DEV FEE 100% - Individual Clocking

[efudd]

I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.

Fine, here's a selection...

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:20:25 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:23:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:45 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:57 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:25:15 +0000] "GET /Z9__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [08/Feb/2019:02:50:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12507784 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:18:14 +0000] "GET /Z9Mini_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12549086 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:44:50 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 4928 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:43 +0000] "GET /Z9_v2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:46:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0a.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:49 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you.

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [11/Feb/2019:23:16:16 +0000] "GET /chipless HTTP/1.1" 301 433 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

-j

[1714766512]

1714766512

[1714766512]

1714766512

[1714766512]

1714766512

[1714766512]

1714766512

[1714766512]

1714766512

[chipless]

I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.

Fine, here's a selection...

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:20:25 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:23:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:45 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:57 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:25:15 +0000] "GET /Z9__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [08/Feb/2019:02:50:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12507784 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:18:14 +0000] "GET /Z9Mini_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12549086 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:44:50 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 4928 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:43 +0000] "GET /Z9_v2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:46:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0a.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:49 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you.

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [11/Feb/2019:23:16:16 +0000] "GET /chipless HTTP/1.1" 301 433 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

-j

Yup and like I said no one was trying to intrude your system it clearly shows I was attempting to download older versions. Anything else. That is not scanning that is downloading previous files you released.

[efudd]

I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.

Fine, here's a selection...

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:20:25 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:23:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:45 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:57 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:25:15 +0000] "GET /Z9__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [08/Feb/2019:02:50:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12507784 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:18:14 +0000] "GET /Z9Mini_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12549086 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:44:50 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 4928 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:43 +0000] "GET /Z9_v2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:46:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0a.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:49 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you.

Code:

24.179.XXX.XXX - - [11/Feb/2019:23:16:16 +0000] "GET /chipless HTTP/1.1" 301 433 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"

-j

Yup and like I said no one was trying to intrude your system it clearly shows I was attempting to download older versions. Anything else. That is not scanning that is downloading previous files you released.

Ok dude. You should get your system checked out for malware or viruses then... and not all of those were released and is guessing.

Regardless, the method of doing changes in memory on ARM  *IS unique* to me. Theft is theft man.

Enjoy your thread.

-j

[chipless]

Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.

And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.

[efudd]

Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.

And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.

Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd.

However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition.

It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you.

I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code.

You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make.

Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements.

Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners.

-j

[chipless]

Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.

And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.

Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd.

However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition.

It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you.

I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code.

You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make.

Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements.

Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners.

-j

You need to look harder because under GPL once you changed a static linked file your claims can disappear and the file becomes part of the GPL whether you wrote it over from scratch or not and since you mixed your code with GPL you are also suppose to supply the source code if requested. You are using GPL libraries and so on therefore under the laws and GPL license for the main codes are GPL

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.

This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution.

So threaten me with an order some more. Your software mods fall under the GPL license whether you like it or not.

[efudd]

Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.

And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.

Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd.

However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition.

It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you.

I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code.

You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make.

Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements.

Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners.

-j

You need to look harder because under GPL once you changed a static linked file your claims can disappear and the file becomes part of the GPL whether you wrote it over from scratch or not and since you mixed your code with GPL you are also suppose to supply the source code if requested. You are using GPL libraries and so on therefore under the laws and GPL license for the main codes are GPL

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.

This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), they can be sued by the original author under copyright law.

So threaten me with an order some more. Your software mods fall under the GPL license whether you like it or not.

Laugh -- there have been no threats and these paragraphs are entirely too cohesive to have been written by you.

There are 0 statically linked libraries associated with the content I named "libnss_mdns_mininal.so.2" or "lcgm".

If you are going to copy/paste something from the internet to sound smart, at least give credits. You've pasted what you have implied (by the act of not providing a source) you wrote above from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

What you have _still_ failed to comprehend is that I am not distributing modifications that fall under GPL. Further, the fact that things are split across multiple libraries and executables is specifically to avoid GPL encumbrance.

BTW, I'm still "Enjoying".

-j

[chipless]

You have no rights, I am telling you, if you don't follow the GPL licensing you cannot claim any violation because then you have no rights to distribute your releases. Your work is considered a derivative work

Those who do not accept the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'd program, they may still use the software within their organization however they like, and works (including programs) constructed by the use of the program are not required to be covered by this license.

Linked to GPL file

libc.so.6 and ld-linux-armhf.so.3

Your lcgm and s02 files are also linked to cgminer which is GPL and open source

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL. You distributed GPL'd work with your modifications.

Whether you want your files proprietary or not you cannot exceed past the GPL license, the .so.2 file was static linked to cgminer therefore you have no claim your work became derivative work whether the library file was junk or not the moment you replaced it you lost any right as the file was part of the original firmware. So either you except the GPL license terms and move on or you don't accept them and pull your firmware offline claiming its all proprietary. But don't think your gonna legal bully me to remove it. I accept the GPL terms

[efudd]

You know what dude, fighting with me is ridiculous since I am someone who was trying to *HELP THE COMMUNITY GET THE MOST OUT OF THEIR MINERS*.

You don't fscking understand dynamic vs. static linking. And lcgm and the .so.2 are *NOT* linked to cgminer and cannot be because cgminer is not a fscking library you fscking idiot.

And the original ".so.2" was a SHARED LIBRARY that other things would dynamically link to, you imbecile. If it was static, you wouldn't see it on the filesystem! Using the same _filename_ does not make the new contents exist under GPL as you so ignorantly and stubbornly assume.

These miners came out, purposefully gimped from the factory. I took the time to unlock them and release it to the community.

Then folk had issues with certain boards on specific batches, so I made a modification to let them get the most out of their system.

Then folk wanted voltage controls... well, you've just ensured that all future work stops because I refuse to sit here and defend against fscking idiots like yourself over and over.

My claims are on lcgm and and the the contents of the file named libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2, not the packaging. You are distributing my work in the packing you provided.

BTW, shit from idiots like yourself is why Bliss moved on also.

.. and the reason why I would have said "a billion dollars" or whatever to you is because you have been ignorantly annoying from the beginning speaking out of your ass with your posts and questions.

Good luck.

(Yeah folk, I *CAN* be an asshole, but most of the time I'm not.. and those of you who have dealt with me privately know that.)

-j

[chipless]

You know what dude, fighting with me is ridiculous since I am someone who was trying to *HELP THE COMMUNITY GET THE MOST OUT OF THEIR MINERS*.

You don't fscking understand dynamic vs. static linking. And lcgm and the .so.2 are *NOT* linked to cgminer and cannot be because cgminer is not a fscking library you fscking idiot.

And the original ".so.2" was a SHARED LIBRARY that other things would dynamically link to, you imbecile. If it was static, you wouldn't see it on the filesystem! Using the same _filename_ does not make the new contents exist under GPL as you so ignorantly and stubbornly assume.

These miners came out, purposefully gimped from the factory. I took the time to unlock them and release it to the community.

Then folk had issues with certain boards on specific batches, so I made a modification to let them get the most out of their system.

Then folk wanted voltage controls... well, you've just ensured that all future work stops because I refuse to sit here and defend against fscking idiots like yourself over and over.

My claims are on lcgm and and the the contents of the file named libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2, not the packaging. You are distributing my work in the packing you provided.

BTW, shit from idiots like yourself is why Bliss moved on also.

.. and the reason why I would have said "a billion dollars" or whatever to you is because you have been ignorantly annoying from the beginning speaking out of your ass with your posts and questions.

Good luck.

(Yeah folk, I *CAN* be an asshole, but most of the time I'm not.. and those of you who have dealt with me privately know that.)

-j

Again, once you replace the file with a different one needed by the firmware you lost any claim regardless of the contents. You should have chosen a different file name I guess, and lcgm well, the s02 file cant run without it, and cgminer wont run without any of it, neither will the firmware OS, should have made a plugin instead of a complete disable of cgminer when you feel like disabling it or whatever you had control of. All you did was wrote a program to hijack cgminer disabling the cgminer without your modified files leaving you no legal standing, unethical yes but not illegal for me to modify it again. Your release also hides the x errors on the web status screen most the time but can be seen in the kernel logs, just to inform you. The crappy part for you is it got hijacked by itself, no new packaging just opened your "out" file as a hdd and edited it there only repack was back to a .gz otherwise its all there just as it was origionally packed in the image

And do you really think you were making people extra money?

Most machines didn't get enough improvement with individual clocking and many didn't even get a 3% increase which breaks them even with the dev fee so in the end they are mining to put money in your pocket while paying for the electric.

That's really getting the most out of their machine. The dev fee is putting about 100+ a day in your pocket which is more than most miners are making in a week.

I am sorry if you don't continue but I would rather see everyone get the most out of their machines now before the difficulty gets to a point where they are scrapping their machines. Besides the voltage increase .vs the increased profit is not good at current coin prices, raising the voltage and clocks use more electricity then you will make in profit again just putting their extra profit in your pocket. So no matter what way you do it you are always in a win win situation and the miner takes the loss.

I will be fair with you... Any new version that does not eliminate any original file from the firmware and does not hijack cgminer without being selected from the miner configuration screen I will leave alone but any modified or replaced factory os file is open game for new modifications. This time you left me a loophole next time do it different.

[efudd]

Sadly it is difficult to have meaningful discourse when intelligence does not exist.

Following your moronic logic. Take the original firmware, delete that file, observe that things run.

Your argument is that every single thing with the same file name is the same. Can you even comprehend how ridiculous that is?

And again, like the countless other things you are wrong on, you are simply wrong on the earnings. The firmware brings in about 35 dollars usd a day.

And your argument also forgets that the factory firmware provided 42KSol/second by spec and units running my firmware have an average of 57kSol with the latest units exceeding 62Ksol.

Hopefully your intelligence level will let you see that is greater than 3%.

As far as “hiding errors” goes, you are incorrect there as usual. Go take a stock firmware and evaluate what happens in the logs vs the dashboard and you might be able to see. An “x” in the dashboard ONLY occurs when an asic COMPLETELY goes offline. Nothing is changed in that handling.

The only loophole is you managed to get your hands on a firmware that was out for about 4 hours before I realized there was a mistake in DNS handling. It was fixed in my changelogs the early morning of 10/24 and will not work on any of the 2.1 and later releases. There is literally zero “mini” functionality in the 2.0 train.

I encourage you to perform and develop your own content, but I do not believe you have that ability.

I would honestly explain how it all works if I thought you had the capacity to comprehend, but clearly you do not.

The takedowns have been submitted and I guess we will just wait for process to happen.

-j

[chipless]

Sadly it is difficult to have meaningful discourse when intelligence does not exist.

Following your moronic logic. Take the original firmware, delete that file, observe that things run.

Your argument is that every single thing with the same file name is the same. Can you even comprehend how ridiculous that is?

And again, like the countless other things you are wrong on, you are simply wrong on the earnings. The firmware brings in about 35 dollars usd a day.

And your argument also forgets that the factory firmware provided 42KSol/second by spec and units running my firmware have an average of 57kSol with the latest units exceeding 62Ksol.

Hopefully your intelligence level will let you see that is greater than 3%.

As far as “hiding errors” goes, you are incorrect there as usual. Go take a stock firmware and evaluate what happens in the logs vs the dashboard and you might be able to see. An “x” in the dashboard ONLY occurs when an asic COMPLETELY goes offline. Nothing is changed in that handling.

The only loophole is you managed to get your hands on a firmware that was out for about 4 hours before I realized there was a mistake in DNS handling. It was fixed in my changelogs the early morning of 10/24 and will not work on any of the 2.1 and later releases. There is literally zero “mini” functionality in the 2.0 train.

I encourage you to perform and develop your own content, but I do not believe you have that ability.

I would honestly explain how it all works if I thought you had the capacity to comprehend, but clearly you do not.

The takedowns have been submitted and I guess we will just wait for process to happen.

-j

I got over 55k with stock fw just like most could have with the smartass111 or my release last year.

My argument is you replaced a factory file therefore leaving it open to any mods desired, if you would have used another file name then the situation would be looked at different by me. You have already admitted the original file was linked to others on the OS therefore replacing it leaves it open to anything under the GPL and other laws.

You left the hole I used it plain and simple. I already have it partially working on a mini. I look forward for the takedown, that wont stop it there are many servers to use where your takedown will be ignored. For the 2.0 and 2.1 versions you have no claim for a takedown all you have is you made a mistake and it cost you, under GPL once you changed the factory files you lost claim plain and simple. As I said choose different files names that aren't part of the OS as it was distributed or covered under the GPL and I wont touch it.

You want to keep commenting on my intelligence but yet I was smart enough to get past your hack, don't under estimate what others can do, I may not explain it all correctly but I can sure make things work when I need to. It's funny your crying because your hack got hacked and now you want to claim GPL and copyrights on your hack/hijack. Good luck with that one... Unethical yes, illegal or violation of GPL or copyright no.

[efudd]

Lol.

-j

[salvo2002]

well that was entertaining.

I may not explain it all correctly...
Unethical yes...

[bswilmington]

This is a fun thing to read I have to say.  I will agree with one thing that is being said here, the fees (efudd).  I believe every developer should get paid.  I have seen your firmware and thought of trying it.  But the dev fees outweigh the rewards.  Now this is honestly your choice since you did do work to make it work correctly.  But a small one time use fee or a 0.5% could be considered more  reasonable.  Also the back door into your the miner shouldn't be there.  Bitmain does it, and I wish I was smart enough to remove it, but I am not.  Maybe that is something you could eliminate, for everyone including yourself.  But this is just my 0.02 so it means nothing.

[gsrcrxsi314]

efudd, you're arguing with someone that thinks he can lower his electric bill by running his miners off an inverter powered by a wind turbine generator, thats being driven from an electric motor plugged back into the house electric.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093693.0

comprehension isnt his strong suit.

he comes up with half baked schemes because he just wants to be in the "club" of contributors so he can try to get free handouts to his crypto addresses.

[chipless]

This is a fun thing to read I have to say.  I will agree with one thing that is being said here, the fees (efudd).  I believe every developer should get paid.  I have seen your firmware and thought of trying it.  But the dev fees outweigh the rewards.  Now this is honestly your choice since you did do work to make it work correctly.  But a small one time use fee or a 0.5% could be considered more  reasonable.  Also the back door into your the miner shouldn't be there.  Bitmain does it, and I wish I was smart enough to remove it, but I am not.  Maybe that is something you could eliminate, for everyone including yourself.  But this is just my 0.02 so it means nothing.

Thank you for your input. I do agree developers should get paid with that said, when I did try to do legit business with him on the fw he acted like an ass because I pointed out the control he had and I released a free version for batch 4 minis. He also led people on by offering a licensed version then pulls the license and says dev only from now on unless you have a large number of units. In my opinion at that point he realized he can profit more from dev only and didn't care about getting the miners the most out of the machines as he claims.

He accused me of trying to rip him off when I was asking legit questions for legit business and before I even considered looking into the fw. His actions led me to look into the GPL fw he started with and I then made a decision once I determined I had the right to change what I wanted. It is all in black and white in the GPL license terms as to how and when I can change his files. He needs to package his files as a upgrade without the original files, only his, because once he packages it with the GPL fw he has to follow the GPL terms the way he linked everything together. I am not demanding his source code which under GPL he is required to release for his 2.1 versions, in those versions he changed cgminer which is open source which he is required to supply the source code if requested.

I don't care about the money part of it and if people want to donate to him still that is great, if they want to donate to me for my work then fine too, but this isn't about the money, it is about getting the most out of the miner investment and being honest and forward with people who want to use the fw… No backdoors, no you pissed me off so I am shutting down your miner, and no random dev fee connections or failure to come out of dev mode.

[salvo2002]

efudd, you're arguing with someone that thinks he can lower his electric bill by running his miners off an inverter powered by a wind turbine generator, thats being driven from an electric motor plugged back into the house electric.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093693.0

comprehension isnt his strong suit.

he comes up with half baked schemes because he just wants to be in the "club" of contributors so he can try to get free handouts to his crypto addresses.

omg, thanks for this... good toilet entertainment!

[efudd]

Update:

Google pulled the link during the evaluation of the legal aspect of this firmware. After review Google's legal team has determined the firmware released is NOT in any violation of copyrights and has re-enable the download link.

It is determined that efudd has to follow the GPL license for the whole package and MUST allow changes to the package, In order for him to get around this he must do a complete firmware package from scratch and not use the original firmware as his base for modifications.

Told you Jason you had to claim...……..

Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"?

Also, you might want to check again.

--snip--
We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center.
--snip--

-j

[efudd]

Update:

Google pulled the link during the evaluation of the legal aspect of this firmware. After review Google's legal team has determined the firmware released is NOT in any violation of copyrights and has re-enable the download link.

It is determined that efudd has to follow the GPL license for the whole package and MUST allow changes to the package, In order for him to get around this he must do a complete firmware package from scratch and not use the original firmware as his base for modifications.

Told you Jason you had to claim...……..

Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"?

Also, you might want to check again.

--snip--
We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center.
--snip--

-j

It will be working fine soon, I received notice on it earlier that it will be re-enabled

Good luck Mr. Grams. While we're waiting, hope about that circular energy? Can you update us on how your attempt to turn 500W into 5000W+ worked out?

-j