Here is how to compensate bitstream developers

[Pipesnake]

This entire "he's going to make too much money/btc" thought is a bunch of horseshit.

You don't understand me.

I am saying the exact opposite.
eldentyrell's method will make him too little money ($1300/mo with 1000 FPGAs).
My method would likely compensate him more.

Well then ET is more magnanimous than you.  Even more reason to support his protocol.

[mrb]

Well then ET is more magnanimous than you.  Even more reason to support his protocol.

Technically this makes you a tightwad
Whereas I am willing to compensate eldentyrell more, if he would distribute his bitstream the way I described.

[Pipesnake]

Well then ET is more magnanimous than you.  Even more reason to support his protocol.

Technically this makes you a tightwad
Whereas I, as a customer, am willing to compensate eldentyrell more, for his remarkable work.

I'm sure he'd be willing to make a version especially for you that donates 20%...

 

[mrb]

I'm sure he'd be willing to make a version especially for you that donates 20%...
 

You are losing sight of my main argument: I am against the complexity of this centralized infrastructure that will get attacked, will get DDoS'd [1], making us all lose (eldentyrell wasting time effectively doing sysadmin work, and customers' miners being down).

I am only willing to reward him more if he would distibute his bitstream the way I described.


[1] The anti-DDoS measures that eldentyrell describes in his FAQ seem trivial to bypass. He seems to only think about dumb attacks like SYN floods. For one, I can think of clients submitting many legitimate signcryption requests to effectively tax his CPUs, not network links. Let's be real, DDoS proofing a service is hard and costly. Eldentyrell certainly cannot do it given his very small profits (again, only $1300/month assuming 1000 FPGAs using is bitstream). For comparison, MtGox spends more than a few thousand USD per month for their anti-DDoS service.

[Pipesnake]

There are already arguments upthread explaining why it's not a good idea and fallback procedures for DDoS attacks, etc.

[nedbert9]

I'm sure he'd be willing to make a version especially for you that donates 20%...
 

And now you are losing sight of my main argument: I am against the complexity of this centralized infrastructure that will get attacked, will get DDoS'd, where we will all lose due to this downtime (eldentyrell and customers).

I am only willing to reward him more if he would distibute his bitstream the way I described.

True, true.  Just another infrastructure where someone gets to pay for the incurred overhead and any loss due to service interruption.

If there was a reasonable level of confidence that compensation in the form of a bounty was feasible that would have been the best way to go about it.  But to take devil's advocate position considering that very little has been donated as compensation for open source contributions, e.g. cgminer, maybe ET had no confidence in a fixed bounty.  

With mining profitability being a variable affair we'll never know how much ET will make off of this.  But it would have been nice to phathom ET's true compensation expectations with a fixed bounty.  If the latter had occurred we would have had firm ground to debate whether ET's bitstream is community contribution or community profiteering.

[mrb]

There are already arguments upthread explaining why it's not a good idea and fallback procedures for DDoS attacks, etc.

Read above, I edited my post to explain why I think he will be unable to defend against DDoS attacks.

[-ck]

Donation sent, CGMiner rocks!

Thanks! Donations rock!

[rudrigorc2]

wft? just release it as opensource, keep the code clean and the bad karma away