Ripped off by a pool?

[gene]

If you have not been paid by a pool server, post here. As of now, I have not seen any money from slush's pool for work which began on 17 Dec.

[1715646613]

1715646613

[1715646613]

1715646613

[jib]

You've complained about this in the other thread persistently. slush has responded, and described that he's implementing a new accounting system and having to process old payments manually. Multiple other people have said they've been paid, and he's showed evidence of many other payments.

I don't think it was necessary for you to create a new thread just to repeat the same accusations. I suggest you drop this issue for a couple more days and give him a chance to fix his system.

[mestar]

I, too, have not seen any money from him. Contributed from 17th as well.

There is something fishy going on there, he posts lists of people that contributed, that list adds to 50, which is obviously wrong since there are some people that contributed and are not on those lists.

Also, did he manage to get to 2.4 khashes (now 4) with only 5 people, as shown in one payment list?

[jib]

he posts lists of people that contributed, that list adds to 50, which is obviously wrong since there are some people that contributed and are not on those lists.

Or maybe those lists are for different blocks to the ones that the people complaining contributed to?

[FreeMoney]

It's really insane to think he would go to all this work building a site and a reputation to throw it away for <1000BTC. It's so obvious that it isn't malicious, just give him time.

[mestar]

Or maybe those lists are for different blocks to the ones that the people complaining contributed to?

Maybe.  However, I worked since the pool had 5 lists solved, and he already posted 7 of those lists, and I'm not on any one of those.  ( I counted them by hand in the long thread, careful to not include quoted duplicates). This can't be explained by the new accounting old accounting.

[Enky1974]

It's really insane to think he would go to all this work building a site and a reputation to throw it away for <1000BTC. It's so obvious that it isn't malicious, just give him time.

Yep, absolutely, but you know, by the law or large numbers there's always someone who never stops complaining:)

[jib]

This can't be explained by the new accounting old accounting.

Actually it can. slush has said that new blocks are being paid now (in the new system) but there are some older blocks (in the old system) which are still waiting.

[gene]

This can't be explained by the new accounting old accounting.

Actually it can. slush has said that new blocks are being paid now (in the new system) but there are some older blocks (in the old system) which are still waiting.

Slush has offered several excuses, some more incoherent than others. Specifically, the argument that blocks take time to mature (and contrary to what many posters seem to think, most of the "complainers" understand this well) is becoming stale as more and more of the blocks, as listed on his own site, are maturing. With each passing day, it is becoming painfully clear that he is either incompetent or dishonest -- perhaps some degree of both.

[Cdecker]

Ok, just to make the situation clear, please post the amounts outstanding and which blocks they were generated in (if you know). So we can actually try to solve the mistery. If Slush would please confirm the amounts and blocks?

Then we can start figuring out which blocks already matured (and are therefore eligible for payout) and which will have to mature first.

I'm guessing this is not the case, but sub cent amounts will not be payed out, since it'll be seen as a DOS attempt by the network and thus swallowed whole as transaction fees.

[gene]

Ok, just to make the situation clear, please post the amounts outstanding and which blocks they were generated in (if you know). So we can actually try to solve the mistery. If Slush would please confirm the amounts and blocks?

Then we can start figuring out which blocks already matured (and are therefore eligible for payout) and which will have to mature first.

I'm guessing this is not the case, but sub cent amounts will not be payed out, since it'll be seen as a DOS attempt by the network and thus swallowed whole as transaction fees.

My balance is a few orders of magnitude greater than the threshold and has been since 18 Dec. I have no way of knowing to which blocks my work corresponds, but according to the information on slush's website, blocks 98425 (solved 2010-12-19 18:21:26) and earlier have all matured as of now. My work went to solving several of those blocks. That should suffice to show that something is seriously wrong.

[slush]

Gene will be payed out in next round.

Cdecker, I agree there was some misconception in payment before. I din't say system worked perfectly. I believe they care about their 0.6 bitcoins. But I 10x said "ok, I know about it, I'm working to make it better". I already made it better and explained why I cannot send money from old blocks instantly. So I don't know what to say more.

Guys, I completely reworked system to be more fair. Again, it was pure technical issue, that I did not expect more than block for a day or two.

Ok, just to make the situation clear, please post the amounts outstanding and which blocks they were generated in (if you know). So we can actually try to solve the mistery. If Slush would please confirm the amounts and blocks?

No, I cannot send this, because old system did not register relation user-block-reward, only user-reward. When block was found, reward was rised and shares deleted. So I cannot tell for those old blocks, who should be paid for which block. Sorry. New system is better, I store all information for later stats.

All remaining payments (reward>=threshold) will be processed when next block become mature. There is much more in rewards on site, but few users trust me and their's send threshold is very high, so I don't need to pay off them yet.

[davout]

Some people will owe you a nice apology when they get paid...

[Enky1974]

No, I cannot send this, because old system did not register relation user-block-reward, only user-reward. When block was found, reward was rised and shares deleted. So I cannot tell for those old blocks, who should be paid for which block. Sorry. New system is better, I store all information for later stats.

All remaining payments (reward>=threshold) will be processed when next block become mature. There is much more in rewards on site, but few users trust me and their's send threshold is very high, so I don't need to pay off them yet.

Thanks for the explanation, now it's all very clear. Keep Up the good work.

[gene]

Some people will owe you a nice apology when they get paid...

I certainly do not see why. If anything, it seems that the people complaining have accelerated action. Also, I still haven't seen any money. You seem to have a bizarre concept of gratitude and when it is merited.

The entire payment scheme remains opaque.

[davout]

Some people will owe you a nice apology when they get paid...

I certainly do not see why. If anything, it seems that the people complaining have accelerated action. Also, I still haven't seen any money. You seem to have a bizarre concept of gratitude and when it is merited.

The entire payment scheme remains opaque.

Yes, sorry, I think it's the other way around, I think slush should apologize to you for being so slow in fixing the free service he's providing to you.
I'm sure he didn't find annoying and insulting at all to get called a scammer by someone whining because his 4.53 BTC didn't arrive fast enough. He's probably even thankful to you for helping him get up and do some work.

[Cdecker]

Cdecker, I agree there was some misconception in payment before. I din't say system worked perfectly. I believe they care about their 0.6 bitcoins. But I 10x said "ok, I know about it, I'm working to make it better". I already made it better and explained why I cannot send money from old blocks instantly. So I don't know what to say more.

I'm glad that it has been cleared now, I really love your Pool and it works like a charm (for me). Just wanted to get everything on track and stop some whiners from influencing too many

[gene]

Some people will owe you a nice apology when they get paid...

I certainly do not see why. If anything, it seems that the people complaining have accelerated action. Also, I still haven't seen any money. You seem to have a bizarre concept of gratitude and when it is merited.

The entire payment scheme remains opaque.

Yes, sorry, I think it's the other way around, I think slush should apologize to you for being so slow in fixing the free service he's providing to you.

This is correct. In a position of accepting trust, the burden of proof is on him to show he is capable and trustworthy. I will correct you on one point; the service has not been free for some.

I'm sure he didn't find annoying and insulting at all to get called a scammer by someone whining because his 4.53 BTC didn't arrive fast enough. He's probably even thankful to you for helping him get up and do some work.

I'm not terribly concerned with what he finds annoying or insulting. Either you take the burden of proof seriously and are immediately clear with explanations or you accept the fact that people will ask tough questions. He voluntarily accepted the role, after all. It disturbs me that so many here are willing to accept the situation as is (i.e., cavalier attitudes toward trust and reputation), especially in the context of a critical phase of the development of a distributed currency.

[slush]

Check slush's thread. He now says that everyone has been paid.

NOW... gene. Now would be the time to flip your lid if you don't have your coins.

Send 1.43 to 1HVjPVMwJFeu8nhwR8vi5MySSkYjQ6mAWt for geneabernathy

[genjix]

lol? all this over 2 BTC. You must be really hard on cash...

[gene]

Good. Would it be possible to discuss in some detail what solution you implemented? What exactly the problems were and how you overcame them? Us code monkeys would like to know. Any chance to see actual code? That would go a long way in restoring some confidence with those who care about such issues.

To those who are obsessed with the issue of the sums involved, I will only say that if one can't be trusted with small sums, how can one be trusted with large sums? Not that it is at all relevant, but the anonymous nature of this forum and bitcoin allow me to experiment with pools using whichever resources I have, especially those which are less productive. Hint: I live in a cold climate. Quite simply, I don't tolerate abuse or evasiveness.

We need a vigilant community. This need will only become more pressing as the currency gains prominence.

[kiba]

We need a vigilant community. This need will only become more pressing as the currency gains prominence.

I gotten very angry with people for bad customer services before on this forum but...I never throw "ripped off" or "scammer" around so easily.

[distant]

All this thread tells me is that gene is an Unappreciative Impatient Douche

[gene]

All this thread tells me is that gene is an Unappreciative Impatient Douche

Top class. But you should see me at the PTA meetings. I'm very popular there.

[davout]

Top class. But you should see me at the PTA meetings. I'm very popular there.

I'm not OK with the previous UID-whatever post and I don't associate myself to that.
However, I think you owe slush an apology. (Oh yes, you should also remove this thread from your signature, OR make a big fat clarification about slush's honesty)

[gene]

Top class. But you should see me at the PTA meetings. I'm very popular there.

I'm not OK with the previous UID-whatever post and I don't associate myself to that.
However, I think you owe slush an apology. (Oh yes, you should also remove this thread from your signature, OR make a big fat clarification about slush's honesty)

I appreciate your distaste for that comment. I'm going to leave my signature intact, as it will hopefully dissuade anyone from getting cute in the future. I cannot be compelled to apologize, nor can I vouch for slush's character beyond what has already been written by everyone.

And thanks to whoever sent me the 20BTC.

[davout]

nor can I vouch for slush's character beyond what has already been written by everyone.

You can still concur

[slush]

I have been very open about all problems with accounting. Everything was solved, nobody was shorted in his reward. I have nothing to say anymore. Nobody is forced to trust me, but I don't understand why anybody spend so much time to go against me. That's all. For me, this topic is closed.

[jib]

gene, can you update the first post in this thread to indicate that you've now been paid and the accusations of scamming were false?

[Mahkul]

Actually, all this whining from gene made me feel like joining this pool. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that slush paid him to make this little bit of advertising.

I may put one of my Radeons on it in a moment.

[davout]

just generated a block of my own, felt like joining the pool for a little while again too

[Mahkul]

just generated a block of my own, felt like joining the pool for a little while again too

I think we have similar GPU power (just I have two separate cards generating 290Mhash each). Do you think it makes more sense to have them connected to one Bitcoin server or would you rather have them separated? I wonder does it make any difference; I had them connected to the same server for a while, but the results weren't what I expected and now I have them running on two separate machines, but for too short period of time to tell the difference as yet.

Sorry for balancing off the topic, we will get back to ripping off in a minute.

[davout]

I think we have similar GPU power (just I have two separate cards generating 290Mhash each). Do you think it makes more sense to have them connected to one Bitcoin server or would you rather have them separated? I wonder does it make any difference; I had them connected to the same server for a while, but the results weren't what I expected and now I have them running on two separate machines, but for too short period of time to tell the difference as yet.

Theoretically, it should give the exact same results.

Sorry for balancing off the topic, we will get back to ripping off in a minute.

Yes, we'd better get back on topic or gene might lodge a formal complaint

[gene]

This seems to be the most appropriate place to discuss various proposed modes of pool cheating and possible workarounds.

When I first heard of pools, I (along with many other, I am sure) immediately thought of the possibility of "micro-skimming." These are old attacks, but for a recent example, read the following link:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ftc-sues-scammers

Some people seem to think that these attacks are a waste of time, because of the small amounts being stolen at a time -- and for a small number of transaction this is true. However, the attack scales well. In fact, it scales well in two ways: 1) the more people/transactions are involved, the more money you steal and 2) the easier it is to hide what you are doing since the skimmed amounts get "lost in the wash." As long as the attacker doesn't get too greedy, the attack is difficult to detect.

My suspicion was raised in part because payments were being made in some seemingly arbitrary way. In fact, the details of how this works in slush's pool remain unclear. I hope that by discussing various forms of the fraud discussed in the above linked article, we can perhaps develop some resistant method by which we can minimize or eliminate the possibility of such attacks. How would you design a pool to cheat people out of money?

As of now, it seems easy to lie about the number of total work units required to solve a block. There is nothing to prevent the pool operator to open a few accounts and attributing some modest number of work to those accounts, increasing the number of total work units required, and dividing the 50BTC proportionally amongst all accounts, including his dummy accounts. With enough blocks, he can snag quite a sum of money. Honest clients will see that their work units are being properly accounted, but they can never see that their effort is being diluted by the operator.

As a bonus, the operator can also appeal to people's sense of gratitude by asking for donations for running his "generous and free" service.

I'll wager that if I have thought of this, somebody else has already implemented it.

How can this be defeated? Comments? Suggestions?

[jib]

I have an idea. Instead of paying by share of the block, the pool could pay a constant amount per share.

e.g slush's pool gives out work with difficulty 1 (I think), so on average there should be 12252.03471156 (current difficulty) shares per block. Each share is thus worth about 0.00408095 BTC, right?

So if the pool had enough BTC in reserve to cover statistical variation, he could just pay that much per share for every share, and you could verify that you're getting paid the right amount.

If this idea were implemented, theoretically on average the pool operator shouldn't make or lose any money (other than rounding errors). I'd be concerned about the chance of the pool possibly running out of money due to random variation, though.

[slush]

I have an idea. Instead of paying by share of the block, the pool could pay a constant amount per share.

e.g slush's pool gives out work with difficulty 1 (I think), so on average there should be 12252.03471156 (current difficulty) shares per block. Each share is thus worth about 0.00408095 BTC, right?

I cannot do this. Mining is not exact and I cannot pay out you forward, before we find a block. EDIT: There is only some chance that we will find block on every x shares. I cannot handle this risk and pay out per share.

For all - there is absolutely no other way than to trust me. Even opening sources will not solve this problem. If you don't trust me, you can leave the pool anytime. But you are welcome to join.

There is only one check, what everybody can do by himself. You can sum your reward from pool for long term (say few months) and sum your potential reward if you mine standalone. But if you make this calculation properly and will take into also rising difficulty, I'm pretty sure your reward from pooled mining will be higher, because you will receive more cents before difficulty goes higher every week.

[Raulo]

I'm pretty sure your reward from pooled mining will be higher, because you will receive more cents before difficulty goes higher every week.

No. In long term, there is no benefit of pooled mining. The only difference is reduced variance in the income stream. Yes, you can get, say, 5 BTC before difficulty gets higher with pooled mining but you have equivalently 10% chance of solving complete 50 BTC block before difficulty gets higher in standalone mining.

[BitLex]

No. In long term, there is no benefit of pooled mining.

depends on your processing-power (except for a very very long term, like decades at least).

if you try mining on a common CPU, you probably won't be able to contribute that much power to the pool, to earn you 5BTC within 2weeks,
most CPUs already need a year or longer on average to generate 1 block, at current difficulty, which will rise within that year.
so most CPU-miners won't generate any bitcoins on their own, ever!

within the pool those miners will not get 5BTC in a week or two, maybe a few cents, or only sub-cents, which isn't much, but far more than they could ever generate on their own.

if you really think, you could do it on your own, give it try, i bet you'll give up in a few weeks, or months without getting anything.

the/a pool is your only chance to get at least something back for contributing your CPU to the network, even if it's just a few bitcents, it's still better than nothing.
you won't make profit anyway, except for the unlikely case that you get your energy for free.


for high-end ATI GPUs you might be right, at least while those are on their own able to generate a block a day, or every couple of days, but that will change too.

for CPUs it's either a few cents from the pool, or nothing at all.

[Raulo]

depends on your processing-power (except for a very very long term, like decades at least).

Probability distribution changes with pooled mining but the average expected mining income does not. No matter what your mining speed is and what your time frame is. If you have a slow CPU miner from which you can get only a 1 BTC a month from pooled mining (and less when the difficulty increases), you have 2% chance of getting 50 BTC in the same time frame (actually you have an average payment of 1 BTC, you have a slightly less than 2% chance of getting 50 BTC but also some chance of getting 100, 150 BTC, etc. )

The "benefit" depends on what you like. Some people would rather have a 1 BTC than a 2% chance of getting 50 BTC. But others would rather have a chance of winning more than get pennies. Millions of people spend a few dollars to get a tiny chance of winning a million in lotteries (even though the expected payment is negative). 

most CPU-miners won't generate any bitcoins on their own, ever!

That's true. But there will be some CPU-miners who will win 50 BTC on their own, an amount they would never get from pooled mining. And the average of winnings of those lucky and unlucky is the same as the average income from pooled mining.

[BitLex]

a tiny chance of winning

that's the point and the big difference between pooled- and standalone-mining.

pools == get payed for the work you do. you will get payed, guaranteed
standalone == get a tiny chance to get payed

[Raulo]

pools == get payed for the work you do. you will get payed, guaranteed
standalone == get a tiny chance to get payed

A small chance, yes, but to get paid much more.

I agree that pooled mining is more predictable and less random. But from the mathematical point of view, the average expected payout is exactly the same regardless of assumptions about hashspeed and growth rate.

If you like a constant stream of micropayments, pooled mining is for you. If you prefer the thrill of getting a block by yourself, do it the standalone way.

Standalone is like betting on a roulette. Except there is no casino that takes its cut. All the winning are distributed fairly. The thrill of gambling for just the cost of electricity

[BitLex]

i can see your point, although i don't really get it.

on one hand you say, you get a chance to get paid much more,
on the other hand you say, from the mathematical point of view, the average expected payout is exactly the same.

what is it now, much more, or exactly the same?
obviously it's the same, the bad side of standalone-mining (at least for low-power-contributors) is,
that you risk to lose it all and get nothing in the end.
in the pool you get the same payout, in form of micropayments, but without the risk to lose it.

except for the thrill, there's nothing to win in standalone-mining, but a few coins to lose.

anyway, as long as you push power to the network, no matter how tiny it is, no matter if pooled or not,
you'll help make our system stronger.

happy crunching. 

[Mahkul]

As of now, it seems easy to lie about the number of total work units required to solve a block. There is nothing to prevent the pool operator to open a few accounts and attributing some modest number of work to those accounts, increasing the number of total work units required, and dividing the 50BTC proportionally amongst all accounts, including his dummy accounts. With enough blocks, he can snag quite a sum of money. Honest clients will see that their work units are being properly accounted, but they can never see that their effort is being diluted by the operator.

Do you really think if slush was retaining a percentage of the earned bitcoins for himself people would stop using the pool? I mean officially retaining, of course.

I'll wager that if I have thought of this, somebody else has already implemented it.

There is this quote by George Bernard Shaw: "A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it."

[slush]

but without the risk to lose it.

Yes, you can be scammed. I absolutely accept that people does not trust pool operator. It is their freedom of choice and Bitcoin is about freedom. I made pooled service with rising difficulty on mind, because I'd like to return my investment to mining hardware. Those periodic micropayments are lowering my own personal risk which I put in bitcoin idea. There were a days when I did not find a block even with strongest GPU on the market, which personally made me uncomfortable.

[gene]

As of now, it seems easy to lie about the number of total work units required to solve a block. There is nothing to prevent the pool operator to open a few accounts and attributing some modest number of work to those accounts, increasing the number of total work units required, and dividing the 50BTC proportionally amongst all accounts, including his dummy accounts. With enough blocks, he can snag quite a sum of money. Honest clients will see that their work units are being properly accounted, but they can never see that their effort is being diluted by the operator.

Do you really think if slush was retaining a percentage of the earned bitcoins for himself people would stop using the pool? I mean officially retaining, of course.

So it isn't worth discussing? I thought this was a technical forum.

There is this quote by George Bernard Shaw: "A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it."

I'm cautiously optimistic, but I know that the wild-west atmosphere that will soon surround this emerging technology is going to nourish some nasty characters. Guaranteed.

Sheep go with the group and don't ask hard questions. Sheep then get slaughtered.

If this early adoption cohort takes things seriously, then bitcoin might have a chance to change the world. If not, well... things like this don't always get second chances to succeed. Powerful people are watching this closely and are looking for cracks.

[BitLex]

Yes, you can be scammed.

of course you can be scammed, you'll always need to trust a pool-admin.

but i wasn't talking about greedy, dishonest people,
just about the advantage of pooled mining, expecting an honest admin.

almost anyone seems to trust the admins of MyBitcoin, MtGox, or other services,
which hold a lot more coins than any of the (2) pools we've seen so far ever generated.
why not trust a pool-admin the same way?
at least give him a few days of "trust in advance", so he can get everything sorted and the system running.

the topic starter doesn't and still calls himself optimistic.
 

[gene]

Yes, you can be scammed.

of course you can be scammed, you'll always need to trust a pool-admin.

but i wasn't talking about greedy, dishonest people,
just about the advantage of pooled mining, expecting an honest admin.

almost anyone seems to trust the admins of MyBitcoin, MtGox, or other services,
which hold a lot more coins than any of the (2) pools we've seen so far ever generated.
why not trust a pool-admin the same way?
at least give him a few days of "trust in advance", so he can get everything sorted and the system running.

the topic starter doesn't and still calls himself optimistic.
 

I called myself cautiously optimistic. The qualifier is crucial. I don't see how useful it is to assume honest actors; this is not the case that matters. The trust models that are currently being used by this community will not scale. The time to tackle these issues is now, not later.

[Mahkul]

I joined the mining pool yesterday evening. Today I received 2.47 BTC. That's actually pretty quick.

[mico]

Is there any difference in pools by it's type? E.g. I'm using CPU mining client and it shows me 52553 khash/s with 40 clients now. Are GPU-clients mininng on another pool instance on the server?

[slush]

Is there any difference in pools by it's type? E.g. I'm using CPU mining client and it shows me 52553 khash/s with 40 clients now. Are GPU-clients mininng on another pool instance on the server?

You joined another pool.