Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB

[jcp]

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

They don't look out of the ordinary if those blocks were evenly distributed. However, all the blocks were made in a small timeframe. Look at the 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc blocks, they were all mined on a single day, same with the 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u blocks. They were reported within a single day (probably when they were setting it up).That's an odd coincidence.

If they were evenly distributed and not suspicious, the odds of that occuring is somewhere around 1 in 1300 using a binomial CDF. When you consider the total population of miners, odds are some miners would be outliers...

HOWEVER, their mined blocks are not evenly distributed and looks as though they were only mined when starting up.

If those two days are actually the day the addresses were set up and we exclude those mined blocks, the odds are staggeringly low...

For example, let's calculate the odds of mining 0 out of 20 expected blocks:
BinomialCDF( x=ActualMinedBlocks, n=(BitcoinDifficulty*ExpectedMinedBlocks), p=(1/BitcoinDifficulty) )
BinomialCDF( x=0, n=(117565519166*20), p=(1/117565519166) ) = 2.06e-9 (1 in 2 billion)
** Taking the lower P value. Technically n should be multiplied by the difference in difficulty and hashrate (7158278) and p divided by the same, as we actually want to measure hashes not on the bitcoin difficulty, but we ignore this because it's so far out the tail the numbers are similar enough for way too many significant digits, you're still going to get 2.06e-9, I'd rather reduce the chances of typos. We are also assuming difficulty of today, when difficulty was lower before (meaning the p value should be higher; the odds are even more slim).

1 in 2 billion confidence for being representative when mining 0 out of 20 expected is garbage and there's trivial ways to check miner operation, but on pure statistics alone, one can be extremely confident this was not by chance. It's probably even more unlikely if we only calculate the last month for all pools. It's early in the morning for me, so my math might be a bit off (or outright wrong) -- and it's been a while since I took highschool statistics so I'd appreciate if any professional statisticians chimed in as well.

[1715481896]

1715481896

[1715481896]

1715481896

[1715481896]

1715481896

[SilentH]

I'd like to see the BTC 200 from Eligius and 300 from Blockwitholder put in escrow and a trusted 3rd party audit carried out.

I'd rather this was done than some witch hunt / trial by media.

Agreed! I was just about to move my TH's to Eligius, but seeing this information has me a bit worried about doing so.

[Brucexie]

I am the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc , 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.
First of all, your PR is very good at dealing with such "incident", to make this thing clear, I'll past the timeline and post we have:

In 5.16, I post my ticket.
In 5.21, you replied to request signature for my address, I replied.
In 5.23, you found my signature is wrong. after investigate, I found that I add a extra space on somewhere, then I re-sign the text.
Then, a week passed. After I said that if there's no response, I will post it on society. Finally, you announced.
Then I give you some option.
Then you keep slience and post this.

The last shared submitted on these address is in first week of May, and you keep slience, until I warn you twice.

For your " demanding 1164%-APY interest", Let me paste my last post here:

===============
Hi,

This may be the last time I ask for your response.
You need to choose one of these two options in 72 hours, or we'll 'escalate' this case to the whole bitcoin society, and your local law enforcement agencies may also be involved later.

1. Pay all unpaid bitcoin before 6/15.
2. Pay under a installment plan: pay 10% per week, or pay 5% a week, with a extra 5% interest.
===================

Thats all, 5% interest. If you can pay me in 10 week, you can still pay nothing extra!!!

Overall, I think that you cannot prove that I was guilty, and you are innocent mathematically. The only word makes you look like innocent is like "I am the 2nd old pool, trust me".

If I didn't do it I would say that I didn't do it.  

You wrote a very long post and not one time did you say that you did not do it.  To me, that says a lot!

Don't bother now, it's too late.

I never say anything which cannot be proved by 3rd party, since that waste my time.
"I didn't do it" is one of them.

[ninjaboon]

and the luck is really bad now:
Round Luck:   37.4%

[S4VV4S]

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

They don't look out of the ordinary if those blocks were evenly distributed. However, all the blocks were made in a small timeframe. Look at the 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc blocks, they were all mined on a single day, same with the 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u blocks. They were reported within a single day (probably when they were setting it up).That's an odd coincidence.

If they were evenly distributed and not suspicious, the odds of that occuring is somewhere around 1 in 1300 using a binomial CDF. When you consider the total population of miners, odds are some miners would be outliers...

HOWEVER, their mined blocks are not evenly distributed and looks as though they were only mined when starting up.

If those two days are actually the day the addresses were set up and we exclude those mined blocks, the odds are staggeringly low...

For example, let's calculate the odds of mining 0 out of 20 expected blocks:
BinomialCDF( x=ActualMinedBlocks, n=(BitcoinDifficulty*ExpectedMinedBlocks), p=(1/BitcoinDifficulty) )
BinomialCDF( x=0, n=(117565519166*20), p=(1/117565519166) ) = 2.06e-9 (1 in 2 billion)
** Taking the lower P value. Technically n should be multiplied by the difference in difficulty and hashrate (7158278) and p divided by the same, as we actually want to measure hashes not on the bitcoin difficulty, but we ignore this because it's so far out the tail the numbers are similar enough for way too many significant digits, you're still going to get 2.06e-9, I'd rather reduce the chances of typos. We are also assuming difficulty of today, when difficulty was lower before (meaning the p value should be higher; the odds are even more slim).

1 in 2 billion confidence for being representative when mining 0 out of 20 expected is garbage and there's trivial ways to check miner operation, but on pure statistics alone, one can be extremely confident this was not by chance. It's probably even more unlikely if we only calculate the last month for all pools. It's early in the morning for me, so my math might be a bit off (or outright wrong) -- and it's been a while since I took highschool statistics so I'd appreciate if any professional statisticians chimed in as well.

Yes but, e=mc2,
so you have to also add the energy require in your calculation.

I have no idea what I just said, I just wanted to sound smart too 

[Brucexie]

I am the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc , 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.
First of all, your PR is very good at dealing with such "incident", to make this thing clear, I'll past the timeline and post we have:

In 5.16, I post my ticket.
In 5.21, you replied to request signature for my address, I replied.
In 5.23, you found my signature is wrong. after investigate, I found that I add a extra space on somewhere, then I re-sign the text.
Then, a week passed. After I said that if there's no response, I will post it on society. Finally, you announced.
Then I give you some option.
Then you keep slience and post this.

The last shared submitted on these address is in first week of May, and you keep slience, until I warn you twice.

For your " demanding 1164%-APY interest", Let me paste my last post here:

===============
Hi,

This may be the last time I ask for your response.
You need to choose one of these two options in 72 hours, or we'll 'escalate' this case to the whole bitcoin society, and your local law enforcement agencies may also be involved later.

1. Pay all unpaid bitcoin before 6/15.
2. Pay under a installment plan: pay 10% per week, or pay 5% a week, with a extra 5% interest.
===================

Thats all, 5% interest. If you can pay me in 10 week, you can still pay nothing extra!!!

And for my "hacking your site if you dont pay", I post my origional words here:

==================
2. No one wants to risk its money (or hash power) to behave maliciously, under the design of bitcoin protocol, since it will for sure bring negative benefit. If I want to act "maliciously", I can pay just even a small proportion of 200btc to a professional hacker, and I believe he can tear your site for weeks. it may be a much better idea than messing your share system up with legal traffic.
==================

May be my english is poor, But I think you know what "IF" means. I just said that assume that I'm a bad guy and want to break your site, it's a better idea to hire a creaker than risk my power of calculation.

Overall, I think that you cannot prove that I was guilty, and you are innocent mathematically. The only word makes you look like innocent is like "I am the 2nd oldest pool, trust me".

Even if it was unintentional you fucked up at everyone elses expense. Other people paid for your mistake in coding. You should return ALL the BTC you've mined.

If you accidentally steal (or even just receive) money from a bank, you are legally required to return it.

Please return all the BTC you mined whilst withholding blocks. It was my understanding this happened by accident (in coding a custom mining client), but that wasn't my mistake, yet you have my money.

How can anyone prove that eligius not erase my block log from the website block list?
You trust eligius more than me, just because that eligius is the 2nd oldest pool?
We used to be as you, until this event.

[Littleshop]

I'd like to see the BTC 200 from Eligius and 300 from Blockwitholder put in escrow and a trusted 3rd party audit carried out.

I'd rather this was done than some witch hunt / trial by media.

Agreed! I was just about to move my TH's to Eligius, but seeing this information has me a bit worried about doing so.

So you would prefer to have a pool owner that does not protect the pool?  

You trust the pool owner to control the BTC 99% of the time but do not in this case?  Either you trust the pool owner or not.  ABSOLUTELY NO need for escrow in this situation.  

[Brucexie]

I'd like to see the BTC 200 from Eligius and 300 from Blockwitholder put in escrow and a trusted 3rd party audit carried out.

I'd rather this was done than some witch hunt / trial by media.

Agreed! I was just about to move my TH's to Eligius, but seeing this information has me a bit worried about doing so.

If you have plan to deploy 1000+T, you really should hire someone to setup a private pool.
If you just have several TB, The profit which eligius get by stealing your coin is much less than the loss after being hit by media and newspaper, so you are still safe.

[Profetu]

Looks like he moved to BTC Guild. Any chance he does the same thing there?

Also if he was "submitting low difficulty shares but did not submit block solutions" how was he able to find blocks?

[Brucexie]

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

They don't look out of the ordinary if those blocks were evenly distributed. However, all the blocks were made in a small timeframe. Look at the 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc blocks, they were all mined on a single day, same with the 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u blocks. They were reported within a single day (probably when they were setting it up).That's an odd coincidence.

If they were evenly distributed and not suspicious, the odds of that occuring is somewhere around 1 in 1300 using a binomial CDF. When you consider the total population of miners, odds are some miners would be outliers...

HOWEVER, their mined blocks are not evenly distributed and looks as though they were only mined when starting up.

If those two days are actually the day the addresses were set up and we exclude those mined blocks, the odds are staggeringly low...

For example, let's calculate the odds of mining 0 out of 20 expected blocks:
BinomialCDF( x=ActualMinedBlocks, n=(BitcoinDifficulty*ExpectedMinedBlocks), p=(1/BitcoinDifficulty) )
BinomialCDF( x=0, n=(117565519166*20), p=(1/117565519166) ) = 2.06e-9 (1 in 2 billion)
** Taking the lower P value. Technically n should be multiplied by the difference in difficulty and hashrate (7158278) and p divided by the same, as we actually want to measure hashes not on the bitcoin difficulty, but we ignore this because it's so far out the tail the numbers are similar enough for way too many significant digits, you're still going to get 2.06e-9, I'd rather reduce the chances of typos. We are also assuming difficulty of today, when difficulty was lower before (meaning the p value should be higher; the odds are even more slim).

1 in 2 billion confidence for being representative when mining 0 out of 20 expected is garbage and there's trivial ways to check miner operation, but on pure statistics alone, one can be extremely confident this was not by chance. It's probably even more unlikely if we only calculate the last month for all pools. It's early in the morning for me, so my math might be a bit off (or outright wrong) -- and it's been a while since I took highschool statistics so I'd appreciate if any professional statisticians chimed in as well.

For anyone who want to raise his calculater to caclulate how rare this could be happened, I'd like to remind them, do not forget, eligius can efface my block from his own block list and annonced that I mine nothing.

[mootinator]

How can anyone prove that eligius not erase my block log from the website block list?
You trust eligius more than me, just because that eligius is the 2nd oldest pool?
We used to be as you, until this event.

Huh. The person who purportedly withheld shares, the only possible motivation for which would be to make Elgius look bad is now trying to... make Eldigus look bad.

I for one would never have predicted this in a million years and am shocked.

SHOCKED I SAY.

[CanaryInTheMine]

I'd like to see the BTC 200 from Eligius and 300 from Blockwitholder put in escrow and a trusted 3rd party audit carried out.

I'd rather this was done than some witch hunt / trial by media.

Agreed! I was just about to move my TH's to Eligius, but seeing this information has me a bit worried about doing so.

I was afraid some folks with large hashing power would think so...
but the point to remember is that if you're not trying to do anything evil, you have nothing to worry about... especially if you begin solving blocks as expected etc... so the short comment is that go ahead please, add to the pool.

[CanaryInTheMine]

hey, can we add this math to be displayed on each miner's stats page?
like how does my share submission and block solving compare to what would be expected (statistically) ?
this would be a great feature for greater transparency within the pool.

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

They don't look out of the ordinary if those blocks were evenly distributed. However, all the blocks were made in a small timeframe. Look at the 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc blocks, they were all mined on a single day, same with the 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u blocks. They were reported within a single day (probably when they were setting it up).That's an odd coincidence.

If they were evenly distributed and not suspicious, the odds of that occuring is somewhere around 1 in 1300 using a binomial CDF. When you consider the total population of miners, odds are some miners would be outliers...

HOWEVER, their mined blocks are not evenly distributed and looks as though they were only mined when starting up.

If those two days are actually the day the addresses were set up and we exclude those mined blocks, the odds are staggeringly low...

For example, let's calculate the odds of mining 0 out of 20 expected blocks:
BinomialCDF( x=ActualMinedBlocks, n=(BitcoinDifficulty*ExpectedMinedBlocks), p=(1/BitcoinDifficulty) )
BinomialCDF( x=0, n=(117565519166*20), p=(1/117565519166) ) = 2.06e-9 (1 in 2 billion)
** Taking the lower P value. Technically n should be multiplied by the difference in difficulty and hashrate (7158278) and p divided by the same, as we actually want to measure hashes not on the bitcoin difficulty, but we ignore this because it's so far out the tail the numbers are similar enough for way too many significant digits, you're still going to get 2.06e-9, I'd rather reduce the chances of typos. We are also assuming difficulty of today, when difficulty was lower before (meaning the p value should be higher; the odds are even more slim).

1 in 2 billion confidence for being representative when mining 0 out of 20 expected is garbage and there's trivial ways to check miner operation, but on pure statistics alone, one can be extremely confident this was not by chance. It's probably even more unlikely if we only calculate the last month for all pools. It's early in the morning for me, so my math might be a bit off (or outright wrong) -- and it's been a while since I took highschool statistics so I'd appreciate if any professional statisticians chimed in as well.

[JoseSan]

For anyone who want to raise his calculater to caclulate how rare this could be happened, I'd like to remind them, do not forget, eligius can efface my block from his own block list and annonced that I mine nothing.

He would have to knowingly withhold a block from his own pool in that case, otherwise it would have been published on the blockchain and eligius' luck rate would have been normal. ~20 expected blocks (500BTC) is slightly more than what he "stole" from you (300BTC). I do not see how it is to WK's advantage to go through all of this just to discredit you.

[Brucexie]

I'd like to see the BTC 200 from Eligius and 300 from Blockwitholder put in escrow and a trusted 3rd party audit carried out.

I'd rather this was done than some witch hunt / trial by media.

Agreed! I was just about to move my TH's to Eligius, but seeing this information has me a bit worried about doing so.

I was afraid some folks with large hashing power would think so...
but the point to remember is that if you're not trying to do anything evil, you have nothing to worry about... especially if you begin solving blocks as expected etc... so the short comment is that go ahead please, add to the pool.

Large hashing power will always be very carefully on selecting pools.
The eligius pool is now a "clean" one with a "potential" tiny black corner, and others 3 big is totally clean like the sky until now.
If you own 1000+T, which one will you choose?

[Hektur]

Wizkid has too good of a reputation to blow it on some baseless accusation.  If he has proof, he has proof.

[Brucexie]

How can anyone prove that eligius not erase my block log from the website block list?
You trust eligius more than me, just because that eligius is the 2nd oldest pool?
We used to be as you, until this event.

Huh. The person who purportedly withheld shares, the only possible motivation for which would be to make Elgius look bad is now trying to... make Eldigus look bad.

I for one would never have predicted this in a million years and am shocked.

SHOCKED I SAY.

If I really wants to make eligius "bad", The right way is to use 10 btc to hire a buck of hacker in china to DDOS that website, instead of risking my 200+ BTC on pretending to be a normal miner.
Holding block is easy to be caught, just a "SELECT user, power, hisLucky WHERE hisLucky < 0.xxx*poolLucky and power > yyy" is enough.
We of course know eligius's crew is not fool.

[grnbrg]

For anyone who want to raise his calculater to caclulate how rare this could be happened, I'd like to remind them, do not forget, eligius can efface my block from his own block list and annonced that I mine nothing.

He would have to knowingly withhold a block from his own pool in that case, otherwise it would have been published on the blockchain and eligius' luck rate would have been normal. ~20 expected blocks (500BTC) is slightly more than what he "stole" from you (300BTC). I do not see how it is to WK's advantage to go through all of this just to discredit you.

And he would had had to have planned this in advance -- it would be trivial to find blocks that paid out to Eligius miners that are not in that list.  So either Eligius is attacking you, or you are attacking Eligius.  (And if WK thought that withholding blocks was a good strategy, why would he focus on one user?)

Edit:  Dammit.  I suppose EvilEligius could just assign blocks to another user -- On reflection, there is nothing really to tie the block the finder.


grnbrg.

[Brucexie]

Wizkid has too good of a reputation to blow it on some baseless accusation.  If he has proof, he has proof.

We believe in bitcoin because that by using bitcoin, there's finally no need to build your finance system on someone's 'reputation'.
Math and 50%+1 democracy works transparently here.
If you still trust 'reputation', you are not really a bitcoiner.

[Henchman24]

For anyone who want to raise his calculater to caclulate how rare this could be happened, I'd like to remind them, do not forget, eligius can efface my block from his own block list and annonced that I mine nothing.

He would have to knowingly withhold a block from his own pool in that case, otherwise it would have been published on the blockchain and eligius' luck rate would have been normal. ~20 expected blocks (500BTC) is slightly more than what he "stole" from you (300BTC). I do not see how it is to WK's advantage to go through all of this just to discredit you.

And he would had had to have planned this in advance -- it would be trivial to find blocks that paid out to Eligius miners that are not in that list.  So either Eligius is attacking you, or you are attacking Eligius.  (And if WK thought that withholding blocks was a good strategy, why would he focus on one user?)


grnbrg.

Not to mention that Eleuthria has identified these addresses as the very same that were not finding blocks at BTCGuild in Apr/May.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49417.msg7287059#msg7287059

That would seem to prove this was malicious and not an accident.

The stink is all over this guy from multiple reliable sources.