[cfarm-users] Compile Farm acceptable usage---low priority batch jobs

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

On 1/2/25 06:22, Jing Luo via cfarm-users wrote:
> On 2025-01-02 16:12, Paul Eggert via cfarm-users wrote:
>> It's better to steer clear of this tarpit.
>
> I also lean towards a total ban for reasons stated by multiple people. 
> But before cfarm-admins has a consensus/conclusion, as the maintainer 
> of cfarm420~430, I would like to unilaterally enforce this temporary 
> rule on cfarm420~430 at my discretion:
>
> Any cpu-intensive process related to cryptocurrency will be killed, 
> unless a "cryptocurrency fee" is prepaid to me: USD$400 per month per 
> user.
>
> The reason for this rule is simple: even though cfarm420~430 run on 
> 100% renewable energy at my tiny apartment in Tokyo, the cost of 
> electricity (around USD$400/month, provided by TEPCO) takes about 20% 
> of my gross income, which is obviously a lot. I see "hosting for 
> cfarm" as my investment of the good of the society, but in the case of 
> cryptocurrency, I have no confidence to say that. On the other hand, 
> access to cfarm420~430 for only $400/month is a great deal comparing 
> to popular "cloud services".

That is precisely the reason to disallow "mining" for profit on the cfarm.

Disallowing all "miners" may be necessary if distinguishing testing from 
"production" use proves infeasible.  (I do like the idea of "sure, if 
you will pay my electric bill", however.  :-D  )

I also note that, if a process is running long enough for the server 
admin to notice, it is probably well over the line from testing to 
"production".


-- Jacob