Yesterday 2quick4u deleted two answers from xmrplayer who was using this gag name on SE. Today I deleted another answer from the same user using a new alias.

Even easier is to use playerz automated XMR miner. Download at *snip* it only mines when the computer is not being used. Very easy setup, extract the files, edit player.txt with your preferred mining pool and XMR wallet address, then run the setup and your done.

Answers that exist to promote a product or service, should at least disclose the author's affiliation. The answer I deleted today did not. If you disagree with the action of a moderator then raise the issue in meta. It is not appropriate to create a new account and post the same spam advertisement (without listing your affiliation).

Under the circumstances I think it would be appropriate for xmrplayer or "Jack" to opensource his miner before posting a similar answer again, and disclosing his affiliation when he does.

We do plan on releasing the source code sometime in the future. However the people involved in the program need to be compensated for their work. This is what the small dev fee provides. Chances are if the source code was released now the dev fee would be removed. We will be releasing the source to the installer program soon.

I am not a fan of heavy handed moderation so welcome dissenting opinions about this. My biggest concern also shared by others is that the closed source miner may be hiding some sort of malware.

1 Answer 1


I completely support your decision. While we should still allow closed-source projects to be shared, I am against the creators of projects spamming their projects here in an unprofessional way (especially under gag names).

I would have been okay with the posts if xmrplayer simply said "I made this miner that helps solve your specific problem." It was relevant to the question he answered, so it should have been allowed if he wasn't already spamming the site.

Concerning malware, I agree that this is an important risk to consider. However, there is no proof that the software actually contains malware. We need to make sure not to ban everything that "may contain malware" because then we would also have to ban Claymore's popular miner. Obviously ban malware, and make sure to stay cautious. A better way would be to comment under his post warning that it is closed-source and the program is new, not a removal entirely (at least for this reason).

  • 1
    Thank you. I agree with your opinion that we should not be banning all links to closed source software and in some cases warning comments are preferable to deletion.
    – Smart Kid
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 20:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .