Bitcoin Mining Pool List

[innerchaos]

P2Pool mining pools

If you are interested in p2pool specifically there maybe useful information here:

 
     http://poolnode.info/
     http://nodes.p2pool.co/
     http://minefast.coincadence.com/

DGM mining pools

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

BTCDig.com

0.0%

No

20 SPM/User Def

Stratum

No

0.001 + 2% Bonus

No

Unknown

Eclipse

0.0%

No

20 to 28 SPM

GBT & Stratum

No

0.001

No

Unknown

MMPool.org

1.5%

Yes

User Def

Stratum

No

0.005

Yes

Unknown

PPLNS mining pools

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

Antpool

0.0%

No

Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.0001

No

Yes

BitClubPool

0.0%

No

Auto Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.002

No

Yes

Bitminter

1.0%

Yes

Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.000001

Yes

Yes

BW.com

Adj.

No

Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.001

No

Yes

CoinStack

2%

No

12 SPM

Stratum

No

0.02

No

Unknown

Ghash.io

0.0%

Unkown

16 SPM/User Def

Stratum

No

0.01

Yes

Unknown

Give-Me-Coins

0.0%

Yes

4-10 SPM/User Def

Stratum

No

0.01

Yes

Unknown

KANO_CKPool

0.9%

Yes

18 SPM

Stratum

No

Unknown

No

Yes

MinerGate

2%

Unkown

Vardiff

Stratum

No

Unknown

No

Unknown

Nexious

100%

No

User Select

Scam

No

Infinity

No

NO

Nexious is a Scam !

P2Pool

0.0%

Yes

P2Pool

P2Pool

No

Unknown

No

Unknown

Cucumber Pool

0.1%

No

Yes

Stratum

No

1

No

Unknown

Cucumber Pool at 0 pool hash rate.

PPS mining pools

WARNINGS
Be careful of low fee PPS-only pools that do not explain how they will afford to pay miners when the pool has a downturn in luck.

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

BTCMP.com

4.0%

No

Unkown

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

No

Unknown

BW.com

Adj.

No

Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.001

No

Yes

Crypt0 Space

.56%

No

Dynamic

Stratum

No

0.001

No

Yes

EclipsePPS

5.0%

No

Dynamic

GBT/Stratum

Yes

0.001

No

Yes

Minergate

2.5%

No

Vardiff

Stratum

No

Unknown

No

Unknown

I think BTCMP is offline and perhaps not a valid pool any longer. I currently show 0 H/s

PPS variant mining pools               

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

Eligius

0.0%

yes

32 SPM

GBT/Stratum

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

PolMine

1.0%

No

Unknown

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

No

Unknown

      

Proportional mining pools

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

BTC_PoolParty

3%

Unk.

Unk.

Stratum

Unk

.001

No

Unknown

Slush exponentially scored mining pools

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

Slushs

2%

Yes

20 SPM

Stratum

No

0.01

No

Yes

                  
Solo-mining pools

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

BitSolo

Block Fee

No

18 SPM

Stratum

No

1 Block Reward

No

Unknown

Nicehash Solo

0.5%

Yes

18 SPM

Stratum

No

1 Block Reward

No

Yes

Solo.CKPool

0.5%

Yes

Unknown

Stratum

No

1 Block Reward

No

Yes

Proxy mining pools

The pools do not solve blocks themselves, but send your work to other pools. You should make sure you are satisfied that they will not send your work to a pool you do not wish to support.

Pool

Fee

Pay TX Reward

Variable Difficulty

Local Work

Pay Orphans

Min Withdrawal

Merged Mining

Support V3 Block

betarigs

2%

No

Vardiff

Stratum

No

0.0001

No

Yes

NiceHash

2%

No

User Defined

Stratum

No

0.0001

No

Yes

Multipool.us

1.5%

No

Us

Stratum

No

0.001

No

Unknown

      


REDUCING REWARD VARIANCE You do not have to mine at only one pool. In order to reduce your income variance, you should mine at multiple pool. As well as reducing variance, this will also help decentralize the network. Details in this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78031.0

[1714969949]

1714969949

[1714969949]

1714969949

[1714969949]

1714969949

[1714969949]

1714969949

[1714969949]

1714969949

[innerchaos]

Summary of mining pool reward systems
Reproduced here with permission from Meni Rosenfeld

	PPS	Geometric	PPLNS	Double geometric	Proportional	Slush's	SMPPS	ESMPPS
Hoppability	None	None	Low/None	None	High	Medium	Low	Low
Share-variance	Very low	Adjustable	Adjustable	Adjustable	Medium	High	Low	Low
Pool-variance	None	Adjustable	High	Adjustable	High	High	Low	Low
Maturity time	None	Low	Adjustable	Adjustable	Medium	Low	Very high	Very high
Operator risk	High	Adjustable	None	Adjustable	None	None	None	None
Variance+risk	High	High	Medium	Adjustable	Medium	High	Low	Low
Variance+risk+maturity	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Complexity	Low	Medium	Medium	High	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Instability	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	High
Author's rating	4/5	4	4	4	1	3	2	2

                        



Attribute description

• Hoppability: In hoppable pools, the attractiveness of submitting shares (in terms of expected return, variance and maturity time) varies based on the pool’s current state. Hoppers will take advantage of times of high attractiveness, leaving steady miners to suffer from more than the fair share of unattractive times. In hopping-proof pools, the expectation, variance and maturity time of the reward per share is always the same.
• Share-variance: This is the variance (statistical deviation between the expected re- ward for a share and the actual reward) caused by the miner being too small or inter- mittent. Using a method with high share-variance does no harm to continuous large miners.
• Pool-variance: This is the variance caused by the pool being too small. Using a method with high pool-variance does no harm to large pools.
• Maturity time: This is the average time it takes to receive the due reward. High maturity time causes loss of the time value of money, and risk of the pool being discontinued before the rewards are received.
• Operator risk: This is the risk the operator is taking in absorbing some of the pool’s variance. Operators of risky methods will require a relatively high fee as compensation, decreasing the expected earnings of participants.
• Variance+risk: Mostly relevant for pools which can adjust variance and operator risk, this is their invariant total.
• Variance+risk+maturity: Mostly relevant for pools which can adjust variance, risk and maturity time, this is their invariant total.
• Complexity: The level of complexity in describing the method, implementing it and modeling its dynamics.
• Instability: This is the probability of the pool’s collapse, and the severity of the event.
• Author’s rating: The author’s opinion of the quality of the method, all things considered. 5 are the best methods, 1 is the worst.

Method description

• Proportional: The block reward is distributed among miners in proportion to the number of shares they submitted in a round. The expected reward per share depends on the number of shares already submitted in the round, so hoppers will receive much more than their fair share and steady miners will earn much less. This is the worst reward system and must not be used.
• PPS: Each share receives a fixed reward known in advance. This is the ultimate low- variance, low-maturity simple method, but has the highest risk for the operator, and hence lower expected returns than other methods and risk of collapse if not managed properly. It is currently only moderately attractive, but is the way of the future - it will be the most widely used method when the infrastructure to offer it with low fees is established.
• slush’s method ([5]): Each share is rewarded with a score depending on when it was submitted (an exponential function of time), and block rewards are distributed among miners in the round in proportion to their score. It is historically the first method developed specifically to combat pool-hopping, though it is incomplete and some hopping is still possible. Contrary to a popular myth, the method is perfectly usable by intermittent miners and their long-term average returns won’t be affected. The variance for intermittent miners will be especially high, though.
• Geometric method ([3]): This is a hopping-proof method based on a more accurate implementation of the principles set forth by slush’s method. Shares are rewarded with a score that decays exponentially as more shares are submitted. The operator takes a variable fee to maintain a steady-state history. The total variance in this method is high, though its distribution between the operator and miners is adjustable. PPS is a special case of this method where the operator takes all the variance.
• PPLNS ([1]): Block rewards are distributed among the last shares, disregarding round boundaries. In the accurate implementation, the number of shares is deter- mined so that their total will be a specified quantity of score (where the score of a share is the inverse of the difficulty). Most pools use a naive implementation based on a fixed number of shares or a fixed multiple of the difficulty. The share-variance can be reduced at the cost of increased maturity time, but there is no way to decrease the long-term pool-variance. All implementations cannot be hopped using traditional methods. However, only the accurate implementation is hopping-proof against diffi- culty adjustments.
• SMPPS: This method attempts to give shares the full PPS reward on a best-effort basis. However, when there is a backlog of due payments the maturity time is high. Hoppers can mine when the balance is positive and enjoy low-fee PPS, and leave when the balance is negative. The properties of stochastic processes guarantee that the negative balance will eventually become arbitrarily high, inevitably causing the collapse of the pool when it becomes unattractive to mine. This is exacerbated by the fact that any losses due to block withholding, invalid blocks and stale shares (if paid) cause the deficit to pile up.
• ESMPPS ([6]): A refinement of SMPPS, where the least paid shares are prioritized. The total reward for a share converges to a steady-state ratio of the maximum long- term payment possible per share after losses. If this steady-state is accepted as the due expected reward, this keeps maturity time in check and prevents debt, measured up to the steady-state level, from piling up. However, the debt will still go arbitrarily high due to variance. The pool may survive this if the participants are loyal.
• Double geometric method([2]): A hopping-proof hybrid between the geometric method and PPLNS, including the former and an exponential version of the latter as special cases. Shares decay exponentially with the number of future shares submitted and the number of blocks found. Round boundaries are crossed but not ignored. Maturity time, variance and operator risk are adjustable, with a low total invariant.

For a more comprehensive discussion of these methods, see [4].

This post will start as a direct copy of the original post by organofcorti so that I may assume the role of maintaining the list. All permissions previously given to organofcorti in regards to the original post, [ref_0] will be inherited by innerchaos with the sole purpose of maintaining the list and associated information for the benefit of all. if you would like your permission rescinded please inform me via PM and I will of course respect your demands.

References
(0) Original Post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.0
[1] Pplns. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39832.
[2] Meni Rosenfeld. Double geometric method: Hopping-proof, low-variance reward system. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39497.
[3] Meni Rosenfeld. Geometric method: New cheat-proof mining pool scoring method. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4787.
[4] Meni Rosenfeld.   Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems, 2011. https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf.
[5] slush. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002.
[6] TheSeven. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12181.msg378851#msg378851.


NOTE FOR BITCOIN POOL OPERATORS: If your pool doesn't appear here please post the pool's statistics in the following format:

Pool:                      <Pool name>
Website:                 <Pool URL>
Proxy:                    Are you a proxy pool? Options: Yes / No
Generation address:  If you are not a proxy pool, what is the address to which block rewards are paid?
Coinbase signature: If you sign the coinbase, what string do you use to identify your blocks?
Payout method:        eg DGM, PPLNS, PPS
Fee:                        Percentage of reward taken as fee
Pay Tx Reward:        Do you pay the tx fees to the miners?
Vardiff:                   options: "User defined" or if automatic quote the shares per minute you're aiming at, eg "20 SPM"
Local Work:             options: stratum / gbt / p2pool
Pay Orphans:           Do you reward miners even if a block is orphaned? Options: Yes / no.
Min Withdrawal:       What is the minimum amount a miner can withdraw?
Merge Mining:          Options: Yes / No
Support V3 Block:     Options: Yes / No

[jonnybravo0311]

Couple of things...

1) Why do you call multipool.us/cryptopros.com "p2pool proxy pools"?  They don't, as far as I know, contribute hash rate to the p2pool network.  The only p2pool proxy pool I can think of is OgNasty's "NastyPoP"... where he's got a ckpool instance on top of the p2pool framework.
2) P2Pool does indeed merge mine if the node operator configures it.  NMC, IXC, HUC, I0C, FSC, DVC, etc are all merge mined on p2pool.  Also, the fees are dependent upon the node operator as well.  It also can be configured to donate to the author of p2pool (forrestv).

[innerchaos]

Couple of things...

1) Why do you call multipool.us/cryptopros.com "p2pool proxy pools"?  They don't, as far as I know, contribute hash rate to the p2pool network.  The only p2pool proxy pool I can think of is OgNasty's "NastyPoP"... where he's got a ckpool instance on top of the p2pool framework.
2) P2Pool does indeed merge mine if the node operator configures it.  NMC, IXC, HUC, I0C, FSC, DVC, etc are all merge mined on p2pool.  Also, the fees are dependent upon the node operator as well.  It also can be configured to donate to the author of p2pool (forrestv).

1. Multipool - I will move it to proportional I think it is a better fit there..it fits under proxy mining and proportional.. Cryptopros is on my short list ... I will delete it soon if it does not work

[organofcorti]

Couple of things...

1) Why do you call multipool.us/cryptopros.com "p2pool proxy pools"?  They don't, as far as I know, contribute hash rate to the p2pool network.  The only p2pool proxy pool I can think of is OgNasty's "NastyPoP"... where he's got a ckpool instance on top of the p2pool framework.
2) P2Pool does indeed merge mine if the node operator configures it.  NMC, IXC, HUC, I0C, FSC, DVC, etc are all merge mined on p2pool.  Also, the fees are dependent upon the node operator as well.  It also can be configured to donate to the author of p2pool (forrestv).

Community members or pool ops told us that the pools were p2pool nodes. If this isn't the case., that needs to be changed.

innerchaos: is multipool.us still proportional? If thought they were PPS? (can't access their site from work to check). If Multipool is still a proxy pool but *not* a p2pool proxy, then I'd list them under "proxy pools" at the end.

[innerchaos]

actually was adding it to both pools I see on their website they offer both

[organofcorti]

actually was adding it to both pools I see on their website they offer both

Both proportional *and* PPS?

[innerchaos]

proxy and proportional for now.. I thought I was reading on their website that they offer proportional payouts.. I got sidetracked by the phone.

"Our modified proportional payout system means that you can be sure every share you submit will be paid. No shares are discarded without being paid. Our method is resistant to pool hoppers."

[organofcorti]

proxy and proportional for now.. I thought I was reading on their website that they offer proportional payouts.. I got sidetracked by the phone.

"Our modified proportional payout system means that you can be sure every share you submit will be paid. No shares are discarded without being paid. Our method is resistant to pool hoppers."

Weird. If they're a proxy, I can't see hoe they could use any reward other than PPS since they're not solving the blocks themselves. If you have time it might be an idea to email them for clarification.

[os2sam]

It's a nice start I think. 

I think Slush is now PPLNS, but I don't know how to confirm that.
Thanks for your effort so far,
Sam

[organofcorti]

It's a nice start I think. 

I think Slush is now PPLNS, but I don't know how to confirm that.
Thanks for your effort so far,
Sam

It's a sort-of PPLNS. Unless I've misunderstood, it's a PPLNS with exponentially decaying share values.

[os2sam]

It's a nice start I think. 

I think Slush is now PPLNS, but I don't know how to confirm that.
Thanks for your effort so far,
Sam

It's a sort-of PPLNS. Unless I've misunderstood, it's a PPLNS with exponentially decaying share values.

Ah, ok.
Thanks,
Sam

[innerchaos]

I would like to add mintsy to this list but, as of yet I cant get it to work with my antminer.

[organofcorti]

I would like to add mintsy to this list but, as of yet I cant get it to work with my antminer.

Mintsy is doing bitcoin mining?

[innerchaos]

I would like to add mintsy to this list but, as of yet I cant get it to work with my antminer.

Mintsy is doing bitcoin mining?

Yea, I login and see they have a BTC Mining Pool currently at 1.223 PHs

I never saw thier name on the blockchain but according to them the last block they found was Block #363243

[organofcorti]

I would like to add mintsy to this list but, as of yet I cant get it to work with my antminer.

Mintsy is doing bitcoin mining?

Yea, I login and see they have a BTC Mining Pool currently at 1.223 PHs

I never saw thier name on the blockchain but according to them the last block they found was Block #363243

It's possible. Block #363243 sent the block reward to 1NY15MK947MLzmPUa2gL7UgyR8prLh2xfu, which had an average hashrate of ~ 2.8 Phps last week. It's labeled as "digitalbtc' (who own mintsy) at blocktrail.com and blockchain.info, but there's no proof of that offered.

Edit: do you have a link for their stats page?

[innerchaos]

I am trying each of these pools to legitimize they work...  any interest in results added to this list... something like :

Pool

Ease of Signup

Ease of Setup

Pool Stability

Pay Match Advertised Rate

Payment Speed

Customer Service

FAKEPOOL1.com

Easy

Easy

High Rejects

Adv. .097-2% / Actual .097-2%

Adv.24h / Actual 72H

Good on IRC

FAKEPOOL2.com

Easy

Easy

Very Stable

YES PPLNS

Adv. 100 Conf. / Actual 100 Conf.

Slow on Forum

[organofcorti]

I am trying each of these pools to legitimize they work...  any interest in results added to this list... something like :

Pool

Ease of Signup

Ease of Setup

Pool Stability

Pay Match Advertised Rate

Payment Speed

Customer Service

FAKEPOOL1.com

Easy

Easy

High Rejects

Adv. .097-2% / Actual .097-2%

Adv.24h / Actual 72H

Good on IRC

FAKEPOOL2.com

Easy

Easy

Very Stable

YES PPLNS

Adv. 100 Conf. / Actual 100 Conf.

Slow on Forum

Tricky. I wouldn't include anything that wasn't either provably correct or only from your own experience, or start up a thread that discusses your experiences with various pools.

[-ck]

Tricky. I wouldn't include anything that wasn't either provably correct or only from your own experience, or start up a thread that discusses your experiences with various pools.

I'd go further and say just include objective information. That table is all subjective stuff.

[p3yot33at3r]

How about listing those pools that are churning out empty blocks & therefor not contributing to the Bitcoin Network?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.

It would help miners make a more ethical decision about what pool to use & also help decentralize the hash power away from the bigger pools who aren't towing the line 

[organofcorti]

How about listing those pools that are churning out empty blocks & therefor not contributing to the Bitcoin Network?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.

It would help miners make a more ethical decision about what pool to use & also help decentralize the hash power away from the bigger pools who aren't towing the line 

Do you have any data on percentage of empty blocks per pool?

[p3yot33at3r]

I've read various figures scattered around the forum, you'd definitely have a better idea than I on how to acquire that kind of info - your expertise is a few divisions above mine.....

[eleuthria]

Just going to point out that the quote above with my comment on SPV mining is not directly related to 1tx blocks.  You can do 1tx blocks without SPV mining.

I do think that 1tx blocks are completely stupid and bad for network health, but SPV mining is at the malicious level of recklessness.

[p3yot33at3r]

Just going to point out that the quote above with my comment on SPV mining is not directly related to 1tx blocks.  You can do 1tx blocks without SPV mining.

I do think that 1tx blocks are completely stupid and bad for network health, but SPV mining is at the malicious level of recklessness.

Thanks for clarifying that eleuthria - if you'd like me to add/edit the quote in any way, just let me know - it's not my intention to mislead or misquote anyone 

[-ck]

How about listing those pools that are churning out empty blocks & therefor not contributing to the Bitcoin Network?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.

It would help miners make a more ethical decision about what pool to use & also help decentralize the hash power away from the bigger pools who aren't towing the line 

Do you have any data on percentage of empty blocks per pool?

I think these are both valuable to disclose - SPV mining and empty blocks.

Empty blocks at least someone has already done an analysis on this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085800.0

Updated for blocks in 2015 up to block 365,401:

[organofcorti]

How about listing those pools that are churning out empty blocks & therefor not contributing to the Bitcoin Network?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.

It would help miners make a more ethical decision about what pool to use & also help decentralize the hash power away from the bigger pools who aren't towing the line 

Do you have any data on percentage of empty blocks per pool?

I think these are both valuable to disclose - SPV mining and empty blocks.

Empty blocks at least someone has already done an analysis on this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085800.0

Updated for blocks in 2015 up to block 365,401:

I think number of 1 tx blocks should be a) per n blocks solved by entity rather than by time period to reduce variance, and b) be normalised by the size of the tx queue at the time the block was solved.

b) is hard and I haven't figured out a good way to do that yet. I think I should be able to use my mempool, but how do I determine the number of tx in mempool when the block was solved? Just use the local maxima before I got the block notification?

[eleuthria]

I think number of 1 tx blocks should be a) per n blocks solved by entity rather than by time period to reduce variance, and b) be normalised by the size of the tx queue at the time the block was solved.

b) is hard and I haven't figured out a good way to do that yet. I think I should be able to use my mempool, but how do I determine the number of tx in mempool when the block was solved? Just use the local maxima before I got the block notification?

I don't see much point in B.  I doubt there has been a time in 2015 where a block has ever been solved with the mempool being *empty* of valid transactions that the pool would not include if it were operating without purposely making empty blocks to make up for poor optimization.

Similarly, I don't see why A would matter much when it's already being expressed as a percentage of their blocks solved.  The network is so big at this point that it is virtually impossible for a pool to have an empty memory pool.  Pools don't push out block templates every time they see a new transaction, so the only way it could possibly happen is if the pool pushes out a block template including their entire memory pool, and a miner solves the block, sends it back to the pool, the pool verifies it, and broadcasts that block clearing their entire memory pool before a single new transaction arrives.  Yes, it could happen, but the likelihood of that event happening enough to actually taint your results seems slim-to-none.

[organofcorti]

I think number of 1 tx blocks should be a) per n blocks solved by entity rather than by time period to reduce variance, and b) be normalised by the size of the tx queue at the time the block was solved.

b) is hard and I haven't figured out a good way to do that yet. I think I should be able to use my mempool, but how do I determine the number of tx in mempool when the block was solved? Just use the local maxima before I got the block notification?

I don't see much point in B.  I doubt there has been a time in 2015 where a block has ever been solved with the mempool being *empty* of valid transactions that the pool would not include if it were operating without purposely making empty blocks to make up for poor optimization.

There were times not so long ago this year when the Statoshi dashboard clearly showed dips to close to zero tx in mempool after a few very short interblock durations. the point is that creating a 1 tx block is clearly more a egregious action when there are ten thousand waiting tx than just a few.

Similarly, I don't see why A would matter much when it's already being expressed as a percentage of their blocks solved.

Variance. Same as the reason why I prefer to treat orphaned blocks the same way - variance should be the same for everyone which make anomalies much harder to hide, and this can only happen if you summarise thedata over similar numbers of blocks.

[sloopy]

How about listing those pools that are churning out empty blocks & therefor not contributing to the Bitcoin Network?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.

It would help miners make a more ethical decision about what pool to use & also help decentralize the hash power away from the bigger pools who aren't towing the line 

Do you have any data on percentage of empty blocks per pool?

I think these are both valuable to disclose - SPV mining and empty blocks.

Empty blocks at least someone has already done an analysis on this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085800.0

Updated for blocks in 2015 up to block 365,401:

I am happy to see you guys being the voices of reason with these issues. The people running Antpool and F2Pool sure aren't, and the only way they will is if we are somehow able to get more attention paid to these problems.
Like the Fork of July and the issues with transactions not being processed.