I'm pretty sure they will be paid out, once the blocks are confirmed and everything.
I can see how the situation with the US pool being closed in the middle of testing a new system could be a bit upsetting, but I can also agree with those that think that you're causing a bit too much noise over this. For example, I'm pretty sure the Eligius thread still had "please test... experimental pool" in the title when this was going on, and I think that would indicate that things should be expected to not work properly all the time.
That positive emotional outlook will definitely help people for pool selection.
This thread is intended to compare CURRENT reward systems based on FACTS of how the pools calculate and distribute rewards.
You're free to post here, but don't be surprised if I nudge the thread back to these roots.
The page I'm looking at shows the pool operator has withheld payment of over 28BTC of "earned" reward to this business savvy miner.
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/3/16ccjkuuQjQ64H9qssmXnj695DdBDR75wJI hope Eligius does pay this hard working miner everything they owe (if this isn't the op's miner anyways).
I did get paid by eligius eventually, but it took about 2 weeks, then the pool op rated me negative for publicizing his practices :-(
Not to mention the forum mod diablo (and possibly others) abusing his authority to censor this thread and threads that link to it :-(
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23760.0Please help fight censorship by posting facts!
Like that 60GH miner working 14hrs 49min and getting excluded from the block payout (in the quote above). . .
Looks like the business savvy miner might have moved elsewhere, I hope they get the 56+ BTC the pool shows they owe. Unfortunately miners don't always get access to the facts presented in this thread before choosing a pool. Sidenote, hopefully the btc will get more valuable over the rime that miner is forced to loan it to the pool, that way the failed payouts could have been done "in the miner's best interests". Gotta love paternalism.
It looks like at least 1 pool operator has outsmarted the pool hoppers, without borrowing BTC from other miners or otherwise shorting their rewards below the proportional level. A simple reporting round shares change will prevent the problems, as I posted previously (quote below). Pool operators don't need to implement a convoluted pps system to "fight" pool hopping, which incidently gives the pool huge windfalls:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18567.msg310250#msg310250thanks, that definitely clears up the theory of hopping.
Maybe a simple 5 minute delay for the 2 pools publishing the shares submitted per round would effectively kill the hoppers profitability, eliminating the hopper benefit for the first 5 min.
Also, maybe the pool could throttle new miners for the first 5-10 minutes of each round. With btcguild/deepbit, this is almost half the round anyways.
Or, a miner entering at the beginning of a round only gets work as fast as they were at the end of the last round for the first 5-10 minutes. This would actually decrease the hoppers work and result in them not submitting shares effectively.
But, as I said, monitoring stats would be the best way to catch the hopper, rather than sacrifice non-hoppers having payouts far below the expected proportional payout.
Like this guy:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/3/16ccjkuuQjQ64H9qssmXnj695DdBDR75wJWTF, submitting 20% of block shares, but with a 0.4 BTC reward.
Must be the pool op (who gets the lost rewards anyway), or is there another rational explanation for why they keep mining there? (yeah botnet that can't be redirected to better paying pool, maybe. . .)
But that miner did get rewarded 0.73 in that block generation:
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000002ff87f817e00d3f86e063c9caa16e7c99ce329b7f3347e4ecf7with 48.70949313BTC being held by the pool operator. . .
more fair than proportional payouts?
