On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 01:40 Jacob Bachmeyer, <jcb62...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/2/25 03:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > 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. > > I have a philosophical view that idle time on servers is essentially > wasted: a sunk cost. > > 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. > > The idea is for portability tests to less-common architectures. I admit > that that may actually not be something the "miner" developers care about. > So a waste of time then 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? > > First, to appropriately minimize the resources used, and prevent creating > perverse incentives to tie the cfarm CPUs in knots. > Or just say it's not allowed. Second, I like finding technical solutions to technical problems, and I > view this as a technical question of how we can maximize the global utility > of the cfarm with minimal compromise to other uses. > It's not a technical problem. [...] >> >> >> 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. > > Careful with that: strictly, Git uses a blockchain structure to store > revision history. (Each repository has its own independent set of > interwoven blockchains. Each commit is a "block".) > Nobody is going to think Git couldn't be tested. It doesn't need to be a legally watertight definition. The cfarm has no legal obligation to provide services to anybody, and discriminating against some cryptocurrency project is fine because being a crypto-bro is not a legally protected characteristic. Limiting that to "no cryptocurrency, including NFTs" might work better. > (No one can credibly argue that Bitcoin is not included in > "cryptocurrency".) > Somebody has already tried to argue that on this mailing list! 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". > > According to <URL:https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm> referenced from > <URL:https://portal.cfarm.net/> <https://portal.cfarm.net/>: > > The GCC Compile farm project maintains a set of machines of various > architectures and provides ssh access to Free Software developers, GCC and > others (GPL, BSD, MIT, ...) to build, test and debug Free, Libre and Open > Source Software. It is *not* a free cluster for computationally intensive > computing using Free Software. > > Cryptocurrency software (at least any credible system) falls under "Free, > Libre and Open Source Software". Cryptocurrency "mining" *definitely* > falls under "computationally intensive computing using Free Software". > > So we are in a position where we need to define boundaries on this issue. > If we can develop conventions and/or infrastructure that can also be > applied to more-important uses, then so much the better. > > > -- Jacob > > >
_______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
