On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 02:55 Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users, < cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net> wrote:
> On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote: > >> Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable? > > > > Not for mining, no. It would still consume resources that are better > > used for cfarm's intended purposes. > > The intention is to limit "miner" testing to idle time, or as close to > that as we can get. > No, it should be zero time, not just idle time. > Also, note that I am suggesting allowing /testing/ "miner" software, not > /using/ it. > I suggest banning it entirely. The cfarm has no obligation to provide resources to miners, even for testing. > For testing, it should be possible to set up an environment with a known > state, instead of using a "live" blockchain, so there is no need to > actually store the blockchain structure, which I agree would be an > intolerable waste of disk space. > Just because something is possible doesn't make it useful. Why are you trying to find a way to support something that doesn't need to be supported? > In fact, for regression tests, you would /need/ that past tip of the > blockchain and transaction buffer state in order to make the test > repeatable. You could also artificially lower the block difficulty to > run the test faster. > Or ban it. > For performance tests, ulimit(1) can be used to limit each run to a > fixed amount of CPU time, with optimization measured in progress made > before SIGXCPU is received. > > >> I would suggest ... making very clear that "mining" for profit is not > >> permitted > > > > That wouldn't suffice, as it's too easy for me to say that I'm not > > doing something for profit, when I get to define "profit". (See what > > many US "nonprofits" do.) > > Simple definition: if the results of "miner" "testing" are submitted to > a blockchain network (directly or indirectly through a pool), excepting > Bitcoin "testnet" or analogous systems where the tokens are agreed to be > worthless, it is considered to be for profit. > Simpler definition: no cryptocurrency, nft, blockchain or bitcoin. > In other words, claiming a block reward is "profit" and forbidden on the > cfarm. Your access to the cfarm is gratis, you are not allowed to use > it to directly acquire "money" in the form of cryptocurrency tokens. > > An accidental submission can be remedied by burning any tokens > received. (For Bitcoin, "send them to Satoshi", although that cannot > happen because you were testing on "testnet" where the tokens are > worthless, right?) > > Another option could be to use a provably invalid address for "miner" > testing, so any rewards received will go nowhere, which amounts to > burning the tokens. > Maybe for would be reasonable rules for a server farm available for testing cryptocurrency tech. But the cfarm is not such a resource, so doesn't need to come up with any such rules. It seems like a waste of time trying to craft such rules, just say "find somewhere else to do this". > There should be viable solutions here, solutions that also scale to less > controversial uses such as CI or automated snapshot builds, which could > then be run with priorities below interactive users but above "miner" > tests. > > > -- Jacob > > _______________________________________________ > cfarm-users mailing list > cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net > https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users >
_______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
