Neighbourhood Pool Watch

[Starlightbreaker]

so burden of proof now is on bitclockers. unless they prove they don't do anything shady, which i doubt, they have some explaining to do.

so far, they haven't really deny anything. only vague statements.

[organofcorti]

so burden of proof now is on bitclockers. unless they prove they don't do anything shady, which i doubt, they have some explaining to do.

I think the burden of proof should be on every pool. It's just that what Bitclockers.com does is so obvious.

so far, they haven't really deny anything. only vague statements.

I know and it's frustrating. I was hoping to get them to open up and explain what they did and why. So far they haven't even acknowledged faking round length stats.

[Starlightbreaker]

send them an email.



....ohwait, they're not gonna reply, lolol.

[farfiman]

All the evidence proves that HOPPERS are earning less than they expect?

Are the "regular" miners earning less?? If so why would they stay there?

I'm not saying that It's OK to play around with the statistics even if the cause
is OK( In their eyes). Rules are rules.  But I guess the non-hopping miners
don't care as long as they get the share of the pie they expect (as if there
were no hoppers)

What it comes down to is that they agreed to pay miners a certain amount and didn't.

So the answer to my question is yes.... hoppers only are hurt apparently

[Starlightbreaker]

All the evidence proves that HOPPERS are earning less than they expect?

Are the "regular" miners earning less?? If so why would they stay there?

I'm not saying that It's OK to play around with the statistics even if the cause
is OK( In their eyes). Rules are rules.  But I guess the non-hopping miners
don't care as long as they get the share of the pie they expect (as if there
were no hoppers)

What it comes down to is that they agreed to pay miners a certain amount and didn't.

So the answer to my question is yes.... hoppers only are hurt apparently

what?

no.
both full-time miners and hoppers, to a degree.

[organofcorti]

All the evidence proves that HOPPERS are earning less than they expect?

Are the "regular" miners earning less?? If so why would they stay there?

I'm not saying that It's OK to play around with the statistics even if the cause
is OK( In their eyes). Rules are rules.  But I guess the non-hopping miners
don't care as long as they get the share of the pie they expect (as if there
were no hoppers)

What it comes down to is that they agreed to pay miners a certain amount and didn't.

So the answer to my question is yes.... hoppers only are hurt apparently

Not quite. According to the promises of the Bitclockers payment method, the case for underpaying all miners on short rounds is the only one that can be proven. Would you be happy if a PPLNS pool you mined at decided to arbitrarily not pay some of your earnings?

But everything else i've written stands as is. I might not be able to prove Bitclockers are stealing blocks, just that it can't be disproven (from the data we have), and in terms of probability appears more likely than not. It would be easy for Bitclockers.com to disprove this, but they don't seem to want to. I hope it's not because they are unable to.

[farfiman]

Not quite. According to the promises of the Bitclockers payment method, the case for underpaying all miners on short rounds is the only one that can be proven. Would you be happy if a PPLNS pool you mined at decided to arbitrarily not pay some of your earnings?

But everything else i've written stands as is. I might not be able to prove Bitclockers are stealing blocks, just that it can't be disproven (from the data we have), and in terms of probability appears more likely than not. It would be easy for Bitclockers.com to disprove this, but they don't seem to want to. I hope it's not because they are unable to.

ok,  I'll revise my statement..  hoppers are hurt more than others ( because they usually take a bigger amount of the pie)

 

[organofcorti]

It will never be possible to mine with some pools and be secure in the knowledge that you are not being robbed of your rightful share. You are spending your associated mining costs on the promise of a return that can be at the discretion of that pool and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

I guess you should feel good if they give you anything!

So, this is probably a good time to start this:

Pools I have confidence in and would mine at (in no particular order)

• Slush's pool (once they're on whatever hop proof payment method Slush decides on)
• Ozcoin
• Eclipse

Why Slush? I 've investigated them more than any other pool. I'd have noticed anything odd.
and generally, all three pools provide stats and are totally open. I also have a significant amount of trust for the pool ops of Ozcoin and Eclipse.

This doesn't mean I don't trust other pools. I wouldn't mine at deepbit for example because I don't want it larger than it is and because I don't need PPS because variance doesn't scare me. BTCGuild is also a fee-pay PPS. Bitlc is out for reasons that date back to multipool (ok so I can hold a grudge). Eligius and Ars are out because they're SMPPS.

I think that covers the main pools.

Thoughts?

[organofcorti]

Not quite. According to the promises of the Bitclockers payment method, the case for underpaying all miners on short rounds is the only one that can be proven. Would you be happy if a PPLNS pool you mined at decided to arbitrarily not pay some of your earnings?

But everything else i've written stands as is. I might not be able to prove Bitclockers are stealing blocks, just that it can't be disproven (from the data we have), and in terms of probability appears more likely than not. It would be easy for Bitclockers.com to disprove this, but they don't seem to want to. I hope it's not because they are unable to.

ok,  I'll revise my statement..  hoppers are hurt more than others ( because they usually take a bigger amount of the pie)

There is no pie. There is only bitcoin. There could be bitcoin pie though, I suppose. It would taste like victory!

To recap:

Everyone loses on short rounds, but strategic miners provably lose more than fulltime miners since strategic miners only stay for short rounds.

I don't know how much or even if fulltime miners' expected payouts are affected. It is possible or even probable that bitclockers have been withholding blocks rewards, but not provable because Bitclockers withhold real stats and produce fake stats.

[farfiman]

If the tactics bitclockers used is not worth a scammers tag I will very soon take their methods to the lending area.

If it is okay for shares it should be okay for real money too. :/

We have enough of that in the lending section already.....

edit:

It seems to me that only the hoppers are mad because its bad for their system. I can understand that but
I guess the majority of the users have no problem with the "hidden" algorithm they use.

Just to be fair I admit that i have a "thing" for hopping and not a good one. When I first started mining I didn't have a clue
and was even happy when the hoppers  came to "help " on the small pools I used.   When I learned the truth it pissed me off.
Don't want to start another discussion on this since there have been so many already.

[Mobius]

If the tactics bitclockers used is not worth a scammers tag I will very soon take their methods to the lending area.

If it is okay for shares it should be okay for real money too. :/

We have enough of that in the lending section already.....

edit:

It seems to me that only the hoppers are mad because its bad for their system. I can understand that but
I guess the majority of the users have no problem with the "hidden" algorithm they use.

Just to be fair I admit that i have a "thing" for hopping and not a good one. When I first started mining I didn't have a clue
and was even happy when the hoppers  came to "help " on the small pools I used.   When I learned the truth it pissed me off.
Don't want to start another discussion on this since there have been so many already.

Who made you the spokesman, they owe all their miners 21% more than they paid. When they pay that out we can re-evaluate their position. Until then they deserve the "scammer tag" and all should avoid them.

[farfiman]

If the tactics bitclockers used is not worth a scammers tag I will very soon take their methods to the lending area.

If it is okay for shares it should be okay for real money too. :/

We have enough of that in the lending section already.....

edit:

It seems to me that only the hoppers are mad because its bad for their system. I can understand that but
I guess the majority of the users have no problem with the "hidden" algorithm they use.

Just to be fair I admit that i have a "thing" for hopping and not a good one. When I first started mining I didn't have a clue
and was even happy when the hoppers  came to "help " on the small pools I used.   When I learned the truth it pissed me off.
Don't want to start another discussion on this since there have been so many already.

Who made you the spokesman, they owe all their miners 21% more than they paid. When they pay that out we can re-evaluate their position. Until then they deserve the "scammer tag" and all should avoid them.

I'm not anybody's spokesman and never even mined there.  All I'm saying is if they were paying 21% less to everybody then nobody would stay there.  The pools owner admits "not condoning hopping" etc etc.. so they took the law ( or the rules) and did whatever they did. I didn't say even once that it's right - just that it does protect somewhat  the full-time miners from the hopping. If the Pool owners ever come clean with the info we shall see.

[Mobius]

If the tactics bitclockers used is not worth a scammers tag I will very soon take their methods to the lending area.

If it is okay for shares it should be okay for real money too. :/

We have enough of that in the lending section already.....

edit:

It seems to me that only the hoppers are mad because its bad for their system. I can understand that but
I guess the majority of the users have no problem with the "hidden" algorithm they use.

Just to be fair I admit that i have a "thing" for hopping and not a good one. When I first started mining I didn't have a clue
and was even happy when the hoppers  came to "help " on the small pools I used.   When I learned the truth it pissed me off.
Don't want to start another discussion on this since there have been so many already.

Who made you the spokesman, they owe all their miners 21% more than they paid. When they pay that out we can re-evaluate their position. Until then they deserve the "scammer tag" and all should avoid them.

I'm not anybody's spokesman and never even mined there.  All I'm saying is if they were paying 21% less to everybody then nobody would stay there.  They Pools owner admits "not condoning hopping" etc etc.. so they took the law ( or the rules) and did whatever they did. I didn't say even once that it's right - just that it does protect somewhat  the full-time miners from the hopping. If the Pool owners ever come clean with the info we shall see.

It's been empirically shown that they have been lying and faking stats, the current analysis implicates them as having shorted ALL their miners (full time) at least 21%. This thread is not about hopping, it's about their lying and stealing from their miners and using hopping "prevention" as an excuse.

If you never mined there, why get involved in the conversation unless you have an alternative motive and/or are trying to promote your own individual agenda.

People continued to mine there because they started as legitimate pool, then they degraded to cheating their miners. Even now they are trying to rehabilitate their stats and information because they were CAUGHT. Their lack of significant response in IRC or in the forums indicates (in my opinion) their hope it will "blow over" and they can continue.

This is the problem with having "pools" and "exchanges" being unverified. People who mined at bitclockers will probably never get the funds that they were cheated/shortchanged. Yet there is no process to hold them accountable.

The principles of Bitclockers should go to jail for fraud, that will not happen at this point in time,  yet until the bitcoin community starts to enforce penalties against this cheating, or set standards, we will be looked upon as an amateur.

If we look at how exchanges now want us (miners) to ID ourselves, why should we not expect the same of exchanges and pools. Who are they? Should they be registered as a business, should they post a bond against fraud. Should there be some oversight council. We need to police ourselves before it is imposed on us by those who have no clue.

[farfiman]

I have no agendas and again , never said its OK what they are doing.

I did say I have a "thing" about hopping and in this case it seems the
hoppers are pissed,  at least more than other miners.

So, maybe I commented on the subject  because of that...

[Mobius]

I have no agendas and again , never said its OK what they are doing.

I did say I have a "thing" about hopping and in this case it seems the
hoppers are pissed,  at least more than other miners.

So, maybe I commented on the subject  because of that...

Whether you have a thing against hoppers or not, does not justify your interference, take that up in another thread,, I had bitcloakers as my backup, I was screwed by 21%. So if you have an issue against hoppers, do it in your own thread. This is about Bitcloaker, STEALING and LYING. Unless you have something productive (actual statistical evidence) go post in another thread and stop obscuring the purpose of this thread for your own ego.

[Graet]

This is the problem with having "pools" and "exchanges" being unverified.

Interesting, about 6 months ago I mentioned somewhere about miners trusting anonomous nicks with no other info - and was howled down in the community. oh well

If we look at how exchanges now want us (miners) to ID ourselves, why should we not expect the same of exchanges and pools. Who are they? Should they be registered as a business, should they post a bond against fraud. Should there be some oversight council. We need to police ourselves before it is imposed on us by those who have no clue.

Those of us that are here for the longterm I think are taking steps towards this, I know of at least one other pool that is a registered buisness...

Post a bond against fraud: hmm interesting - will you insure pools and exchanges against hacking (i know entirely different subject)... but lets be a bit real

There should be a group of  people overseeing this yes, it has been mentioned before in this thread and others.

Actually if people took more responsibility for themselves and did research on pools or exchanges before they use them would be less need for policing.

my 2s
Graeme Tee
Graet
Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd
ACN: 152 509 272
^^^ (this info has been in the 1st post of our pool thread for about 7months)

[Mobius]

This is the problem with having "pools" and "exchanges" being unverified.

Interesting, about 6 months ago I mentioned somewhere about miners trusting anonomous nicks with no other info - and was howled down in the community. oh well

If we look at how exchanges now want us (miners) to ID ourselves, why should we not expect the same of exchanges and pools. Who are they? Should they be registered as a business, should they post a bond against fraud. Should there be some oversight council. We need to police ourselves before it is imposed on us by those who have no clue.

Those of us that are here for the longterm I think are taking steps towards this, I know of at least one other pool that is a registered buisness...

Post a bond against fraud: hmm interesting - will you insure pools and exchanges against hacking (i know entirely different subject)... but lets be a bit real

There should be a group of  people overseeing this yes, it has been mentioned before in this thread and others.

Actually if people took more responsibility for themselves and did research on pools or exchanges before they use them would be less need for policing.

my 2s
Graeme Tee
Graet
Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd
ACN: 152 509 272
^^^ (this info has been in the 1st post of our pool thread for about 7months)

Garet,
You are one of the few pools that I actually have full respect for, you have been completely open with your pool and it's progression.  The bond would be against the exchange/pool cheating people against their monetary investment. Hacking of a pool can be be covered by insurance against hacking(cost of business). Unfortunately, if we don't police our own neck of the woods,legislation will.

[farfiman]

I have no agendas and again , never said its OK what they are doing.

I did say I have a "thing" about hopping and in this case it seems the
hoppers are pissed,  at least more than other miners.

So, maybe I commented on the subject  because of that...

I hop and I do have money involved in this however I would be just as upset and vocal even if I did not.

Organ has no money in this and has done all of the work and proved these guys are scammers.

Having this sort of thing in our community is bad and once it is exposed should be dealt with. I really do not think we should support this sort of thing or it will just spread.

anyway p2p for the win.

I agree - there is far too much bad going on in the forum and mining.   My comments weren't personal against you or any hopper -  was just - in my eyes- a bit of poetic justice...

[martychubbs]

BC went down, now that it is up, organ think anything has changed?

So, you think they slowed the initial hash rate and share count to have hoppers stay longer and/or delaying block starts?  So, would that buffer be spread out over the "block" (fake) or just kept by the op?  I can see you can hop it but it's like a even worse coinotron...get killed on the short rounds...not a good mix with other prop pools...

Also, did BC just have a short round? 

[Transisto]

1.111~ sent,

Unfortunate that shady hopping countermeasure are being used to fake stats/payout,  when open and effective solution already exist.

Ps: statistically speaking,,, Some pool that charge 10% for PPS and 3% for prop..  They make it sound as if running a prop pool with 4Ths was a risky business to the operator. , it's not.  ... Just saying... see sig.