What sort of incentive is there to use a fee based miner when the current version is free, besides it's doing the right thing? And are you really bitching about having to do a little bit of work to earn money?It really isn't that hard to setup a pool and you know it, you just don't want to have to do the tiniest bit extra work to make it happen (which shows the whole reason we're stuck where we are right now).
Actually, if the miner is good enough, this is kind of bad. One pool getting MASSIVE hashrate, or multiple pools controlled by one person? It's a very quick road to centralization.
2% hashrate isn't massive.
That aside, a developer doesn't even need to make their own pool. They just need
A pool. You don't even need to do any work on this besides write in the extra code to divert 2 shares every 100 (although there is still the Lyra difficulty issue that hasn't been resolved yet).
I really don't think a united green team would case an issue related to centralization but even then, we could cross that bridge once we get there.
I think I'm just talking to the wall once again as I got used to being ignored when it comes to serious discussions but what the hell, I'll bite once again; so really as many people are working on optimizing (cuda based) miners there really isn't any improvements towards monetizing it. Personally, I'm using a closed source ccminer fork for about six months now so I'm not really bothered by what's going on with the open source scheme but still, I think there should have been some improvements regarding monetization. Unfortunately there was none.
There's always the argument towards open source fee based miners but there wasn't even a (major) release to at least try the freaking thing. In reality, we, in this thread are in the tiny minority when it comes to nvidia based mining and sites like cryptominingblog and several other sites are the ones distributing the software towards potentially thousands of miners who might not even know what BCT is or might not even speak English. Surely, an open source fee based miner would at least worth a try by now to see how much would it earn from both dedicated and imbecile miners - even if it's a compelte failure - but there wasn't any (major) release of it. Just look at how many people would donate to tsiv towards his/her lyra2rev2 miner.
And then there's yaamp which got open sourced not so recently and even that opportunity got ignored. Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it, but a yaamp based multipool with decent fees and full transparency would really motivate coders to improve code especially if their fee was based on their measured improvements (%) on a per algo basis after an established baseline.
I really think the coders of the community should put their heads together and come up with something reasonable because I'm sure appreciative fans wouldn't mind paying for improvements.
Definitely... It's not just improvements. It seems like Nvidia coders are starting to stop distributing their kernels and optimizations as they don't receive enough back.'I don't get enough donations' seems to be common place now days. I don't want that to happen. A continual fee based system should offer incentive over time. A donation system will ALWAYS be sporadic and will never be enough for some people, that's when it's time to change to something else.
It's also true that a fee based system hasn't been really tried. It STILL works for Claymore and there are still people mining with his miner. That's a perfect example of it working properly. He's still at 2% or 2.5%. Claymore also updated his miner quite regularly during the hay days of Cryptonote. That's what people want if there is a percentage fee associated with it (features wouldn't hurt either).
And yeah, it seems like people like complaining about not getting enough money here, but not doing anything about it. Maybe then because it seems like they're offering a product and then would have to support it? A obligation?
Well, imagine I develop the miner and the pool, and I lock my miner to one pool. If my miner is fast enough, people will switch to it, otherwise they will be at a severe disadvantage. This causes a miner monopoly, and since the pool is locked in the miner, it creates a pool monopoly. Now, one pool easily will have well over 50% hashrate, allowing them to attack the chain if they so choose.
You don't need to have all the shares being submitted to the same pool. Claymore allowed the use of your personal pool and 2 shares would be submitted to a pool of his choosing.
There is also nothing stopping developers from stopping support of such a miner and making their own branch if they hate it. This was the whole reason I suggested a pilot program with 10% increase in hash (SPs private Quark is much faster as is TSIVs Lyra2v2) and 2% fee to see where it goes.
yeah, I agree about not locking a miner to the pool, I was just interested about the closed source. I assume its to ensure receiving compensation for the effort of coding, which I also agree with, but I was just curious if there's anything more.
My only experience is the Monero, and its black and white comparing what has happened with nvidia vs. amd mining - claymore has updated his software constantly, whereas tsivs miner not so much. And, as he stated, its probably because the donations haven't been pouring in.
Oh, closed source only cause otherwise people take out the fee and redistribute it.
I've thought about that as well. Assumedly there will be continued development on such a miner. Just open source a couple versions behind if they so choose. So it's antiquated and not really competitive, but the community can still value from it. Claymore even offered a option where you could use his miner without donations, but lost like 5% of the hashrate if you were hell bent on it (of course the fee was only 2.5% so...).
Such a miner is a good opportunity for developers to make money as well. If they want to work on a complete rewrite, they'll be rewarded for it (as long as the miner isn't a 'only us' crew and snubs other developers that want to help).
