I have nothing to do with that rule, i am not modifying the software nor i am building anything to modify its behavior.
I thought you were talking about the software that the license file was posted above
Are you talking about two different pieces of software here? Because the software referenced in your first statement clearly did contain redistribution restrictions.
From the LICENSE file:
1 Like
Let me put this as simply as I can.
Optiminers software can not be redistributed by you, it clearly says this in thier licence. If you upload that miner somewhere and post a link to it on these forums you will be banned.
1 Like
The release contain LICENSE file which explicitly prohibits 3rd party redistribution.
That’s not the end of the world.
As stated by others already, redistribution of previous version of my miner is illegal by its license.
Regarding new releases of my miner, see Miner- Optiminer/Zcash GPU miner v1.7! - #1146 by Optiminer
3 Likes
Well, @minerzec and all those that were in doubt,
Flypool has implemented SSL and so has Claymore.
The root of this? Well, I don’t need to state the obvious here I guess.
Well, considering that the new optiminer version is as fast as the previous, i’m not that sure
Optiminer’s license won’t hold up in court anyways, he probably wrote it himself.
I think optiminer must not be a miner, other than a test rig. Otherwise, he would realize what he’s really asking for from the miner when he takes a 10% fee for as long as the miner uses his software. He’s asking for 10% of a miner’s gross revenue. The miner is basically giving him 10% of his rig(s), even though the miner shelled out the capital for the rig, got it working, supplies the space for it, optimizes it, maintains it, pays for the power for it, pays the pool fee for it, deals with the heat from it, etc., etc. In other words, 10% of net revenue is a lot less than 10% of the gross revenue. There’s a reason why Claymore has been so successful and is well regarded by miners: he’s sensible about what his dev fee is, and sensitive to what he’s asking for from the miner. He keeps his dev fee reasonable (for ETH, it’s 1% if you don’t dual mine), in keeping with what pools normally charge. If you consider what a pool gives the miner for his 1% fee, it really makes optiminer look like one greedy SOB. When folks get that feeling about a person, many will simply say “screw you too”. He basically brought all the dev fee removal action on himself by not being fair to the miners from the start, and if he had been, he would be making a lot more for his efforts, with a lot less negativity directed his way.
4 Likes
Totally agree, the fee is too high. I never tought to “steal” the dev fee from claymore, because it is a reasonable amount. But iam glad i circumvent optiminers fee
I agree but it is very hard finding a method from someone you can trust,I have plenty PM’s offering hacked software but reluctant to spend money asked from unknown sources and no way of knowing if you are buying legitimate crack or been ripped of again,Optiminer fee is an insult to miners and just shows greedy developer looking for fast buck at our expense
Was 15% to start with so with that and founders fee miners paying 35% before pool and exchange fees,no wonder miners are left with scraps and earn nothing after electric companies take another 50% to keep our miners running with power costs in uk
Claymore releasing Linux version 9.2 with 2% fee in 2 days
3 Likes
thats good, and pool difficulty should drop as people migrate from 10% fee to 2% fee.
well, economic factors win yet again.
it is interesting how everyone milks the crypto until nothing is left.
all this will be taught in economics classes some day soon.
there’s no more fee comes out of GPU resources from optiminer, claymore will expensive for sure as long as he squeeze profit out of our GPUs.
but optiminer didn’t increase much , at least v1.1.0 no much improvement as claymore.
I am not tring to start any old fights with anyone in the thread here, I just ran across this and had a thing or two to say.
Reading through all the varied responses of this thread has truly cheered my day up. Really, thank you for that!
Partially the request to remove dev fees is so we have a choice. I am not saying it should be just broadcast in the readme file, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong for a workaround to be available. That way those who spend the time and effort to research past just installing can find it. Another part is that I would guess many of those who don’t think it should be any choice at all probably rant about Windows on some other forum for ‘forcing’ users to update or have Windows Defender actively monitoring; that’s the group that is calling the kettle black being a pot and all.
The only issue I have with these dev’s collecting fees is if tey aren’t using it to buy valid licenses to deploy on Windows machines or really upgrade, not just add support for the latest video card, the ability of the miner. If it is at its peak then we should have an option. Its kind of like the PlayStation Network how they collect their fee for playing online but spend so very little actually improving the stability or security of the network. Also, if they are getting paid then they best have a better distro point than what they use that keeps setting off AV bells. For some of these to still be setting those off is just lazy and sloppy development. I wont get any further into that side as I have made my views on that very clear.
Bottom line, the devs (who most likely are on every anti-trust about S/W not giving the option for something or Google fan boys while Google takes literal keystrokes of anything you do to sell it to anyone and everyone with a buck) should include the ability for the dev fee to be disabled, adjusted, or maybe become inactive after so many uses or ‘life cycle event’. You don’t keep paying the dealership for your car after so long, right? You don’t have to keep paying MSFT for your copy of Windows 10, right? So it makes sense… either start drastically improving the downloads and code or give some options to choose what I think its worth… especially after it depreciates in use. And I can tell you that there are plenty of things I contribute to past what is ‘asked’ due to the quality of the product/service.
Now to the main OP… it probably isn’t the wisest thing to do in selling what you are. While I have my feelings about the dev fee, I wouldn’t use a hack to disable it. One, I don’t know whats in the hack; and two, the dev will always find a way to ignore the hack you give so it would need a full refund guarantee… which I know is not offered.
can you do this for windows? does it work on new version