This will be resolved the next time the stratum servers are restarted.  Unfortunately, right now it's not a high priority since this problem only happens when people rename workers to a previously used name...which really doesn't happen often.  If it really bugs you...name them something you haven't used before, and the problem will go away.

If there is a reason to restart the stratum servers, the issue will be gone.  Otherwise they won't be restarted until something else comes along that warrants restarting them.

Set it to 0.001 (not 0.0001).  0.00x auto payout thresholds trigger once per 24 hours.  0.0x+ trigger once per hour.  The full balance is paid when it triggers.





I have absolutely no idea what that is, but it's unrelated.

Don't forget it would also affect all users if it was a bug in stratum.  It's mostly the same users getting hit each time, and they are a very small subset.  

EDIT: As Lucko posted, it hit his machines on 4 different pools, at 4 different locations on 2 different ISPs.  That makes no sense that it would do that unless it's something specific to him.  If the problem was pool side, or even widespread, you'd be seeing *massive* speed fluctuations on pools when these redirects happen.  It isn't related to some clients not supporting it, since BTC Guild actually uses client.reconnect for it's public servers.  EVERYBODY actively mining on the BTC Guild public stratum servers supports client.reconnect.

LTC auto convert should kick in next hour.  I was not expecting the pool to hit multiple LTC blocks so the balance on BTC-e was not topped up.

I've yet to see a single report of a BTC Guild miner being directed elsewhere.  I've had somebody claim they saw a connection from another pool redirected to a BTC Guild account, but the report was false (the account they claimed to be redirected to doesn't even exist, and I don't believe the attack can actually change worker credentials).

EU-Stratum rejects pings, so that isn't unexpected.  But as I stated before:  This isn't a pool problem.  There is nothing I can do on my end because there is nothing wrong on my end.

Small miners would just end up making even less because the pool would HAVE to have a higher overall fee in order to pay a reward for block finding.  Small miners aren't expected to find a block *in their lifetime* these days.  The chances of them ever seeing the bonus BTC reward is quite small, but they will be paying higher fees as a result of that potential bonus.

It's definitely a localized problem.  I've yet to see a single report of it on BTC Guild.  It *did* happen to ScryptGuild at the same time as CleverMining a few months back, but the number of users affected was so low I believe it was local malware.  If it's some kind of ARP poisoning to intercept the traffic, that's possible (ScryptGuild is run out of OVH, while BTC Guild is not run in a shitty datacenter like that).

It is not a stratum bug, that much is absolutely certain (there's no way to relay messages to an independent stratum connection).  It is using a stratum method (client.reconnect) to perform the attack though, and make it so once the connection does have the message injected (how that's done I still have no damn clue), the client connects directly to "evilserver.com".

It is possible....but the pool would have to charge a 4% fee in order to have an extra 1 BTC to provide a block finder, assuming the pool was "0%" fee pre-bonus.

The problem isn't the pool.  It's likely a bad route between you and the server, likely at your ISP since there have not been massive drops in pool speed indicating a wide spread regional issue.  A 400 TH/s swing is virtually nothing against a 8 PH/s pool.





3 captures from users that are in different regions.

I'm not revealing any identities about users of my pool, only that it's completely obvious it was a user of my pool that made the 900 BTC investment.  However, it has absolutely no ties to Gox.  Flow of coins linked to the "proof" (AKA: Eleuthria tag):

Eleuthria tag (BTC Guild pool wallet) -> *Automatic payout to user's wallet -> MaidSafe IPO.

At no point is Gox involved in that chain.  However, if Gox was involved in that chain, there's no chance in I'm going to disclose a user's information.  The only way user's information on BTC Guild would be revealed is if I have a court subpoena in front of me requesting information on a specific set of accounts.  And in that event, it certainly isn't going to involve me posting that user's information in public.



* There are a LOT of automatic payouts over a very long period of time to that user's wallet, it's not 900 BTC -> User Wallet -> MaidSafe.  There's also non-BTC Guild coins going to the middle address (I think).

The proof he posted is shit.  It's linking it to me via a tag on blockchain.info.

LOOK AT THE ADDRESS YOURSELF.  That is *THE BTC GUILD MINING POOL WALLET*.  The address which funded the IPO was NOT that wallet.  It was *another* wallet, which received funds from the mining pool wallet.  AKA:  A user on the BTC Guild pool.

Yes, that was a stealth change.  The average line is still showing 3 months, but the detail is only the last month.  The next alteration is going to be making the graph still show 3 months of luck, but instead of a spot for each individual shift, it will merge 3 shifts for each data point, that way you still get the same amount of information (3 months), but fewer datapoints slowing down mobile and lower end desktop/browser javascript implementations.

I hope this whole thing implodes and everybody gets fucked by MaidSafe.  I do not enjoy waking up to emails tying myself to shitcoins, especially in the same sentence as MtGox, and will forever wish for misfortune upon anybody that touches this piece of shit.  All because some retard doesn't understand that taint analysis doesn't work when the source of coins are a pool responsible for producing ~25% of all coins mined in the last year.

You and me both.  I could've saved myself and the dumbass a lot of trouble but just stealing the coins from his pool account directly.


EDIT:  Heh, just looked up who actually did the 900 BTC payment (since the "proof" that it was me shows the path the coins took).  Can't believe somebody that has been involved in Bitcoin that long would invest in a shitcoin .


Really pathetic how bad that proof is.  It shows the hops the coins took...which means it shows that the account that paid all that BTC was a regular user account (all transactions from the pool wallet to that address were standard sendtomany autopayouts).

Sorry, I was just going based of the 7k BTC amount that keeps getting posted.  I have no intention of actually looking in depth into yet another shitcoin.

RawDog, since you're an obvious troll, I will communicate in terms your feeble mind can understand (meme images):

I'd probably ignore it...if it wasn't for trying to link me to some shitcoin.  Anybody who has paid attention to me in IRC (hell, even ScryptGuild's forum thread) would know I have no love for altcoins and hope they all die off.  The unofficial motto for ScryptGuild (in IRC) was "Rape and Pillage".  I have nothing against profiting off shitcoins, but I wouldn't invest a cent into one of them.

I hope they all get screwed for trying to invest in yet another shitcoin.  It blows my mind that this shit just made 3 million dollars for doing basically nothing.

Just a reminder:

A 51% attack cannot break any existing protocol rules, only enforce it's own new rules on top of them, as long as they do not conflict.  Attempting to do otherwise is actually a hard fork where only the attacker is mining.  It will not merge with the "real" blockchain.  The rest of the network will continue happily on the real chain and not even notice the conflicting chain since it is not recognized by bitcoind (unless they update to the attacker's modified version).