[350 GH/s] "Eligius" (experimental) pool: almost feeless PPS, hoppers welcome

[GimEEE]

[yadda yadda whine ...]
In this case, when Eligius operator wrote to me: I'll pay you when your balance is 1BTC or more. BINGO, explicit promise.
[much more whine after this]

The website reads: "This amount will be paid to you when it reaches 1 BTC or after one week of inactivity, when the pool finds a block."
The US server has not found a block in almost a week, as you know. So it can't pay out, even if your balance would be 1,000 BTC, only when it comes back up again and finds another block in which to include the transactions. Unfortunate, but you wouldn't want to sell your coins at this price anyway, right?!
IMO Luke-Jr has fulfilled this "promise" (as you call it) to the letter. The downtime on US is annoying, but where was any guaranteed uptime promised?!

But, blocks were found as miners were going unpaid with >1BTC balances:
Here's one typical example: http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Earning BTC after BTC and the pool just didn't pay out block after block. . .
I don't understand your straw argument of 1,000BTC. could you please explain that further? Are you claiming that it's ok for Eligius to withhold payments for 2000% of the normal block contributions (which would necessarily span a minimum 21+blocks) as BTC are piling up?
Then there's great motivation for the operator to stop "finding blocks" and it could explain the current situation.

You also justify the theft by saying he is doing a good job safekeeping me from selling my BTC. I don't accept this paternalistic argument and feel it is totally unjustifiable to support Eligius breaking the promised payout schedule and keep my BTC.
Maybe other miners have accepted it though, and it might explain that, but I'm not interested in Eligius helping me by safeguarding my BTC.

[1714946650]

1714946650

[1714946650]

1714946650

[1714946650]

1714946650

[1714946650]

1714946650

[GimEEE]

Hey GimEEE,
I'm not being a smart arse here, but I'm wondering if you realise how the score based system Luke Jr uses works? Ignore my post if you do, but I noticed in your post:

(while not increasing my reward for rounds longer than 90 minutes).

If you mean the EU server, this is how the score based system works - your shares decay over time, you get the same for longer rounds as shorter ones, and shares contributed at the start of the round are  worth less than those at the end (to try to reduce the value of pool hopping).
Also:

us server pps shorting

Max PPS ran on the US server for only very short period of time. And even if you did run on it for a while, you might see some short term reduction in payout the value of which you'll get back as soon as US is up.
Luke has been totally open about all this (although maybe not as clear as I'd like) and he has a long history here. I'd trust him to get you your coins if they are missing. If I've misunderstood your post, I apologise in advance.

Regarding the maximumpps shorting system, it's totally different from "score based systems" - Here we had a pool operator reducing rewards for rounds less than 90 minutes and keeping the reduction to themselves (or loaning it to themselves if you want to give him the benefit of your optimism), there was a promise that rounds later that were longer would be repaid this loaned BTC, but this repayment was never implemented. there is a typical example of how it affected a user in my post above.
Of course optimism, hope, opinion, and LOTS of WAITING would be good in this case to reach the conclusion that nothing is fishy. Can the shorted miners use all those tools to accept current situation? yes, of course, they could also get a lobotomy and accept it.
Should miners quietly accept the fact that a pool took work under explicit promises, then failed to meet the conditions promised? Apparently you're saying I should. . .
Well, I did several days of waiting and hoping and being optimistic, and it didn't deliver the coins he owed me.

Mod here. Don't be a jackass.

Sorry for not quietly accepting the loss of BTC. . .
I'm the jackass for that.
The pool operator is totally in the right.
(that was sarcasm)

Then use a different pool.

I did, almost all the top miners did, as you'll see none of the current miners were active around June 14th when the shorting took place.
Using a different pool doesn't get my "borrowed without permission" BTC back from Eligius though.

[gentakin]

This problem is inherent in the way eligius pays out. Each block can pay out a maximum of 50BTC + Fees (because all payouts are done with the generation transaction). So if there is more than 50BTC to be paid, it's impossible and some of the payouts have to be enqueued for the next block, but the next block will have the same problem as the eligius fees are very small and with each block, the miners gain ~50BTC more to be paid out. So if there is a big backlog of payouts, it will take some time.

If I remember correctly, there's a special wallet where any generations that are created in a block but can't be paid out yet because there is no user with >1BTC balance are sent. It should be possible for luke-jr to send a standard transaction from that wallet to GimEEE to settle this once and for all.

[Luke-Jr]

If I remember correctly, there's a special wallet where any generations that are created in a block but can't be paid out yet because there is no user with >1BTC balance are sent. It should be possible for luke-jr to send a standard transaction from that wallet to GimEEE to settle this once and for all.

I can (and have been) make exceptions and manually send from the pool accounts, but GimEEE is demanding about 2 times what he is due, and if I offered to send his balance he would probably try to spin it as offering a settlement of a lower amount than he wants. Not to mention, why go out of my way for someone trolling?

[GimEEE]

If I remember correctly, there's a special wallet where any generations that are created in a block but can't be paid out yet because there is no user with >1BTC balance are sent. It should be possible for luke-jr to send a standard transaction from that wallet to GimEEE to settle this once and for all.

I can (and have been) make exceptions and manually send from the pool accounts, but GimEEE is demanding about 2 times what he is due, and if I offered to send his balance he would probably try to spin it as offering a settlement of a lower amount than he wants. Not to mention, why go out of my way for someone trolling?

The truth is you don't acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of your maximumpps BTC shorting technique that you used to gain significant amounts of BTC from miners around June 14th on the us server.
I presented the evidence for one typical user above and explained how the shorting technique worked.
presenting facts not equal trolling

[supa]

The precedence here is that luke-jr provided a service and the moment the service has some technical difficulties.... this guy is trying to go on a witch-hunt on the forums to find "almost 7" (almost 7 being defined as a number between 0 and 6.3) bitcoins by way of "public dispute" (aka harassment, slander and general flame).  It's immature and extremely entertaining, but very saddening to see luke-jr outright attacked for providing a service to the best of his ability without additional compensation or claim to any compensation - that is, even though an exceptional amount of work is done for eligius users, luke-jr's reward is to put up with nitwits.

That, of course, equally applies for all pool owners, operators and supporters.  You can find nitwits like GimEEE in EVERY pool claiming more than their fair share *immediately* and committing to outright harassment until they believe they're rewarded appropriately - or until a new PS3 game/WoW expansion/Twilight comes out and they find something better to do.

You can clearly see in the posts above that there is no sign of objectiveness or consideration for other individuals.  It's a very clear sign of immaturity and inability to properly function in any community when the thought that "I'm going to strong-arm the internet to bend to my will!" is the singular motivator of action for an individual. 

In other words....

Not to mention, why go out of my way for someone trolling?

Winner.

[DiabloD3]

Hey GimEEE,
I'm not being a smart arse here, but I'm wondering if you realise how the score based system Luke Jr uses works? Ignore my post if you do, but I noticed in your post:

(while not increasing my reward for rounds longer than 90 minutes).

If you mean the EU server, this is how the score based system works - your shares decay over time, you get the same for longer rounds as shorter ones, and shares contributed at the start of the round are  worth less than those at the end (to try to reduce the value of pool hopping).
Also:

us server pps shorting

Max PPS ran on the US server for only very short period of time. And even if you did run on it for a while, you might see some short term reduction in payout the value of which you'll get back as soon as US is up.
Luke has been totally open about all this (although maybe not as clear as I'd like) and he has a long history here. I'd trust him to get you your coins if they are missing. If I've misunderstood your post, I apologise in advance.

Regarding the maximumpps shorting system, it's totally different from "score based systems" - Here we had a pool operator reducing rewards for rounds less than 90 minutes and keeping the reduction to themselves (or loaning it to themselves if you want to give him the benefit of your optimism), there was a promise that rounds later that were longer would be repaid this loaned BTC, but this repayment was never implemented. there is a typical example of how it affected a user in my post above.
Of course optimism, hope, opinion, and LOTS of WAITING would be good in this case to reach the conclusion that nothing is fishy. Can the shorted miners use all those tools to accept current situation? yes, of course, they could also get a lobotomy and accept it.
Should miners quietly accept the fact that a pool took work under explicit promises, then failed to meet the conditions promised? Apparently you're saying I should. . .
Well, I did several days of waiting and hoping and being optimistic, and it didn't deliver the coins he owed me.

Mod here. Don't be a jackass.

Sorry for not quietly accepting the loss of BTC. . .
I'm the jackass for that.
The pool operator is totally in the right.
(that was sarcasm)

Then use a different pool.

I did, almost all the top miners did, as you'll see none of the current miners were active around June 14th when the shorting took place.
Using a different pool doesn't get my "borrowed without permission" BTC back from Eligius though.

And good for you. I'm the author of DiabloMiner and a forum mod and one of the earliest Bitcoin adopters.

I use Eligius.  

[Yeti]

But, blocks were found as miners were going unpaid with >1BTC balances:
Here's one typical example: http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Earning BTC after BTC and the pool just didn't pay out block after block. . .
I don't understand your straw argument of 1,000BTC. could you please explain that further? Are you claiming that it's ok for Eligius to withhold payments for 2000% of the normal block contributions (which would necessarily span a minimum 21+blocks) as BTC are piling up?
Then there's great motivation for the operator to stop "finding blocks" and it could explain the current situation.

You also justify the theft by saying he is doing a good job safekeeping me from selling my BTC. I don't accept this paternalistic argument and feel it is totally unjustifiable to support Eligius breaking the promised payout schedule and keep my BTC.
Maybe other miners have accepted it though, and it might explain that, but I'm not interested in Eligius helping me by safeguarding my BTC.

Yo dawg, whaddap wit all da long words and shizz?!

What you call "paternalistic argument" I call sarcasm. If you can't discern the both of them, I suggest English Lit 101.

The 1,000 were a bit over-zealous, agreed. The thing is, Luke-Jr has nothing to gain from "withholding" blocks because they are not in his account. They have been paid out to other people already to set their balance straight. So in order for a payout to happen, new coins have to be generated. Is it really that hard?!

Notwithstanding the unusual situation with the US server (being offline and thus delaying payout of the biggest amount you're claiming), the behavior of Eligius in regard to the EU server is perfectly normal. I recently reached 1.005 BTC balance and was not paid out, but I did not hyperventilate as on the next block I got paid 1.05 BTC ...

If your goal is to scare miners away from Eligius, you're not succeeding. At least not with me. I like it and I'm staying!

[bitcoin0918]

I am fairly new to Eligius, but have been promptly paid each time I passed the 1.0 BTC mark. No complaints here.

[GimEEE]

The precedence here is that luke-jr provided a service and the moment the service has some technical difficulties.... this guy is trying to go on a witch-hunt on the forums to find "almost 7" (almost 7 being defined as a number between 0 and 6.3) bitcoins by way of "public dispute" (aka harassment, slander and general flame).  It's immature and extremely entertaining, but very saddening to see luke-jr outright attacked for providing a service to the best of his ability without additional compensation or claim to any compensation - that is, even though an exceptional amount of work is done for eligius users, luke-jr's reward is to put up with nitwits.
That, of course, equally applies for all pool owners, operators and supporters.  You can find nitwits like GimEEE in EVERY pool claiming more than their fair share *immediately* and committing to outright harassment until they believe they're rewarded appropriately - or until a new PS3 game/WoW expansion/Twilight comes out and they find something better to do.
You can clearly see in the posts above that there is no sign of objectiveness or consideration for other individuals.  It's a very clear sign of immaturity and inability to properly function in any community when the thought that "I'm going to strong-arm the internet to bend to my will!" is the singular motivator of action for an individual.  
In other words....

Not to mention, why go out of my way for someone trolling?

Winner.

"At the moment of difficulty. . ." - error in your logic, end processing.
Truth - "Diffculty" was around june 14th, as I've stated, it's over a week since the scamming started, in BTC a week is like eternity.

That's naive to look at eu server and say "it's paying people out good, I don't have to worry, I'll keep using the service." I hope he doesn't repeat the theft on you guys. . .

Unless you're addressing the scamming done on the us server around June 14th, your arguments are nonsequitors.

So, if I were to say "Eligius paid me fine from June 6th to June 12th each time I had more than 1BTC, so you should trust him," it would likewise be a nonsense rebuttal to the specific scamming incidents I have claimed and had admitted by the operator.

How can you prove me wrong? Link to an eligius miner stats page who used us-server on June 14th and didn't get scammed out of BTC.

[bitcoin0918]

Libel much?

[JJG]

The last several pages are full of highly unprofessional banter. Can we please stick to the facts and lay of the ad-hom attacks?

I think the real problem here is that Luke-Jr has changed the rules of the game several times lately without warning. Some of these changes have resulted in the pool holding on to small, but not entirely insignificant, amounts of BTC owed to the miners. To make matters worse, these withheld earnings come with little explanation from Luke-Jr and little more than a vague promise to pay them out at some later date.

These events as of late are disappointing, to say the least, for a pool that prides itself on transparency.

[Luke-Jr]

The last several pages are full of highly unprofessional banter. Can we please stick to the facts and lay of the ad-hom attacks?

I think the real problem here is that Luke-Jr has changed the rules of the game several times lately without warning. Some of these changes have resulted in the pool holding on to small, but not entirely insignificant, amounts of BTC owed to the miners. To make matters worse, these withheld earnings come with little explanation from Luke-Jr and little more than a vague promise to pay them out at some later date.

These events as of late are disappointing, to say the least, for a pool that prides itself on transparency.

The MaxPPS change was expected for about a month before it happened. If people had a problem with it, they should have said so before then. As it turned out, the variation made the 40% MaxPPS impractical to run long, so I had to (retroactively) revert it to proportional rather soon. In short, all balances are presently correct, as determined by the original Proportional payout method, even if there is a (small) backlog on the US server. Occasional backlogs have been normal since almost the start of Eligius (ever since the 1 BTC minimum was implemented), and the only reason it's taking so long now is the general problems with getting the US pool running again. Since all the US blocks have long since reached the 120 confirmations, I have been making an exception to the usual policy by sending manual payouts on request to people who need their funds sooner.

[supa]

How can you prove me wrong? Link to an eligius miner stats page who used us-server on June 14th and didn't get scammed out of BTC.

You have yet to actually prove yourself right - which is impossible so stop not trying (not a typo - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not your best effort).

You rant here on unquantifiable remarks like "scammed", "cheated", "stolen," "borrowed," - and the quantifiable parts of your argument are just outright bizarre.  6.3 is almost 7 bitcoins?  Really?  Link you to "an eligius  miner stats page who used us-server on June 14th and didn't get scammed" - easy.  I can link you to all of them because you have yet to qualify "scammed" with something more than your random opinions and obfuscated arguments.

I can prove to you that I got "almost 7 bitcoins" (qualified as a number between 0 and 7 but less than 6.3) on all of the days you've mentioned.

That is enough to invalidate your ranting as "OMG 1 h4s empirical evidence of criminal scammery!!111"


How about you link me to page with undeniable proof that luke-jr is intentionally taking mining earnings as his own with the intent of acquiring those funds through malicious use of a pool?  You provided little more than a description of the technical problems and limitations we are all already familiar with.

tl;dr version in gimEEE-language:  You require proof from the agent of consecutive retort proselytizing the morose, laudable, elementary criminality of the personality of the luke-jr syndicated criminal organization.  In that conviction, you have deluded the earnest and honest declarations of those individuals without malice as using bias-confirmations without logical aptitude.  To you, I unabashedly declare the fraudulent and scathing remarks to be unqualified and postulate undeniable and logical attestation of duplicitous behavior.

[GimEEE]

The last several pages are full of highly unprofessional banter. Can we please stick to the facts and lay of the ad-hom attacks?
I think the real problem here is that Luke-Jr has changed the rules of the game several times lately without warning. Some of these changes have resulted in the pool holding on to small, but not entirely insignificant, amounts of BTC owed to the miners. To make matters worse, these withheld earnings come with little explanation from Luke-Jr and little more than a vague promise to pay them out at some later date.
These events as of late are disappointing, to say the least, for a pool that prides itself on transparency.

The MaxPPS change was expected for about a month before it happened. If people had a problem with it, they should have said so before then. As it turned out, the variation made the 40% MaxPPS impractical to run long, so I had to (retroactively) revert it to proportional rather soon. In short, all balances are presently correct, as determined by the original Proportional payout method, even if there is a (small) backlog on the US server. Occasional backlogs have been normal since almost the start of Eligius (ever since the 1 BTC minimum was implemented), and the only reason it's taking so long now is the general problems with getting the US pool running again. Since all the US blocks have long since reached the 120 confirmations, I have been making an exception to the usual policy by sending manual payouts on request to people who need their funds sooner.

I didn't expect the maxpps and I wasn't informed beforehand (neither in this forum nor on your website) until after the maxpps shorting began.
Why wasn't the miner stats page I linked to above rewarded proportionally for the period around June 14th on the us-server?
Did you or will you change the reward balances to undo the maxpps shorting that occured around June 14th? If so, do you have a link to any miner stats page/s which received proportional rewards for eligius us around June 14th? (proportional = 50 x %contributed)

[GimEEE]

Was that around June 14th? Thats when the maximumpps shorting system was implemented.
maybe if you link to your stats page it will be easier to research, like this:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Now for that address, you can see the maximum pps shorting did it's job during these rounds:
1h2m   4s   3,338/145,196=   2.2990 %   0.29390580 BTC (should be 1.1495)
16m43s   854/39,560=   2.1587 %   0.07508482 BTC (1.07935)
3h22m34s   5,498/470,841=   1.1677 %   0.48443702 BTC (.58385)
1h38m18s   5,022/239,107=   2.1003 %   0.44257700 BTC (1.05015)
29m49s   1,578/72,605=   2.1734 %   0.13906552 BTC (1.0867)
1h23m24s   3,817/176,193=   2.1664 %   0.33638325 BTC (1.0832)
For a total shorting of around 4BTC which wasn't made up for (by even .01BTC) in the longer round below that awarded the expected amounts of 50 BTC * % contributed:
4h   34m   14s no reimbursement
1h   33m   52s no reimbursement   
4h   6m   41s no reimbursement
9h   33m   13s no reimbursement
3h   22m   34s no reimbursement
2h   9m   54s no reimbursement
Coupled with the almost 7 BTC that the pool acknowledges it owes him but presumably has not yet made plans to pay him, I can see why this miner left and never returned to eligius.
If you have any disagreement on the math, PLMK where my mistake was.
There's a reason why all the top hashers have been with eligius less than 1 week:
After someone screws you out of BTC, would you keep mining with them?
Hopefully he won't do it to the new users, but you've all been warned. . .

There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.
Here's the stats summary for the unpaid rewards on that typical miner loss I examined above:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
you'll notice, adding the 2 together, the admitted debt is closer to 7 than 6BTC, so please don't nitpick the rounding, which was on the fly, 6.7 is "almost 7"

[DiabloD3]

Was that around June 14th? Thats when the maximumpps shorting system was implemented.
maybe if you link to your stats page it will be easier to research, like this:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Now for that address, you can see the maximum pps shorting did it's job during these rounds:
1h2m   4s   3,338/145,196=   2.2990 %   0.29390580 BTC (should be 1.1495)
16m43s   854/39,560=   2.1587 %   0.07508482 BTC (1.07935)
3h22m34s   5,498/470,841=   1.1677 %   0.48443702 BTC (.58385)
1h38m18s   5,022/239,107=   2.1003 %   0.44257700 BTC (1.05015)
29m49s   1,578/72,605=   2.1734 %   0.13906552 BTC (1.0867)
1h23m24s   3,817/176,193=   2.1664 %   0.33638325 BTC (1.0832)
For a total shorting of around 4BTC which wasn't made up for (by even .01BTC) in the longer round below that awarded the expected amounts of 50 BTC * % contributed:
4h   34m   14s no reimbursement
1h   33m   52s no reimbursement   
4h   6m   41s no reimbursement
9h   33m   13s no reimbursement
3h   22m   34s no reimbursement
2h   9m   54s no reimbursement
Coupled with the almost 7 BTC that the pool acknowledges it owes him but presumably has not yet made plans to pay him, I can see why this miner left and never returned to eligius.
If you have any disagreement on the math, PLMK where my mistake was.
There's a reason why all the top hashers have been with eligius less than 1 week:
After someone screws you out of BTC, would you keep mining with them?
Hopefully he won't do it to the new users, but you've all been warned. . .

There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.
Here's the stats summary for the unpaid rewards on that typical miner loss I examined above:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK

I vote for gimeee's mney to be taken and donated to the pool.

[GimEEE]

Was that around June 14th? Thats when the maximumpps shorting system was implemented.
maybe if you link to your stats page it will be easier to research, like this:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Now for that address, you can see the maximum pps shorting did it's job during these rounds:
1h2m   4s   3,338/145,196=   2.2990 %   0.29390580 BTC (should be 1.1495)
16m43s   854/39,560=   2.1587 %   0.07508482 BTC (1.07935)
3h22m34s   5,498/470,841=   1.1677 %   0.48443702 BTC (.58385)
1h38m18s   5,022/239,107=   2.1003 %   0.44257700 BTC (1.05015)
29m49s   1,578/72,605=   2.1734 %   0.13906552 BTC (1.0867)
1h23m24s   3,817/176,193=   2.1664 %   0.33638325 BTC (1.0832)
For a total shorting of around 4BTC which wasn't made up for (by even .01BTC) in the longer round below that awarded the expected amounts of 50 BTC * % contributed:
4h   34m   14s no reimbursement
1h   33m   52s no reimbursement   
4h   6m   41s no reimbursement
9h   33m   13s no reimbursement
3h   22m   34s no reimbursement
2h   9m   54s no reimbursement
Coupled with the almost 7 BTC that the pool acknowledges it owes him but presumably has not yet made plans to pay him, I can see why this miner left and never returned to eligius.
If you have any disagreement on the math, PLMK where my mistake was.
There's a reason why all the top hashers have been with eligius less than 1 week:
After someone screws you out of BTC, would you keep mining with them?
Hopefully he won't do it to the new users, but you've all been warned. . .

There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.
Here's the stats summary for the unpaid rewards on that typical miner loss I examined above:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK

I vote for gimeee's mney to be taken and donated to the pool.

Admitting the theft is at least a step forward to reversing it.
Even if it were only one miner being stolen from, that's enough reason for me to avoid Eligius until it comes clean.

[DiabloD3]

Was that around June 14th? Thats when the maximumpps shorting system was implemented.
maybe if you link to your stats page it will be easier to research, like this:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
Now for that address, you can see the maximum pps shorting did it's job during these rounds:
1h2m   4s   3,338/145,196=   2.2990 %   0.29390580 BTC (should be 1.1495)
16m43s   854/39,560=   2.1587 %   0.07508482 BTC (1.07935)
3h22m34s   5,498/470,841=   1.1677 %   0.48443702 BTC (.58385)
1h38m18s   5,022/239,107=   2.1003 %   0.44257700 BTC (1.05015)
29m49s   1,578/72,605=   2.1734 %   0.13906552 BTC (1.0867)
1h23m24s   3,817/176,193=   2.1664 %   0.33638325 BTC (1.0832)
For a total shorting of around 4BTC which wasn't made up for (by even .01BTC) in the longer round below that awarded the expected amounts of 50 BTC * % contributed:
4h   34m   14s no reimbursement
1h   33m   52s no reimbursement   
4h   6m   41s no reimbursement
9h   33m   13s no reimbursement
3h   22m   34s no reimbursement
2h   9m   54s no reimbursement
Coupled with the almost 7 BTC that the pool acknowledges it owes him but presumably has not yet made plans to pay him, I can see why this miner left and never returned to eligius.
If you have any disagreement on the math, PLMK where my mistake was.
There's a reason why all the top hashers have been with eligius less than 1 week:
After someone screws you out of BTC, would you keep mining with them?
Hopefully he won't do it to the new users, but you've all been warned. . .

There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.
Here's the stats summary for the unpaid rewards on that typical miner loss I examined above:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/us/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkK

I vote for gimeee's mney to be taken and donated to the pool.

Admitting the theft is at least a step forward to reversing it.
Even if it were only one miner being stolen from, that's enough reason for me to avoid Eligius until it comes clean.

Did I say donating it to the pool? I meant giving it to me.

[supa]

There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.

I'm so glad you misused the term "basic discussion principles" in your normal subterfuge.

Quick edit - forgot the link: http://unrforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Our-Discussion.jpg

Again, you can't simply introduce vocabulary that is bias and misleading while suggesting it is a standard of some sort.  You've done this several times - even if I did believe you, I wouldn't want to agree with someone that was masking their own inadequacies, incorrectness or inability to understand with these behaviors unless they were able to support their ideas in a sophisticated and accurate manner.

The MaxPPS announcement was in a *HUGE* banner at the top of the status pages for each address.  You missed it on your own negligence.

An example of your undeniable evidence that is very easy to disprove with the amount of effort equal to what I feel you are bothering to put in to resolving your own issue:

A possible reason "top hashers" on eligius are only there for a week?  Because we are able to switch addresses and aren't bound to ridiculous logins.  More realistically, and more factually, it is completely not true "top hashers" are leaving in droves after "being cheated":

http://eligius.st/~artefact2/

Top 10 contributors have been there for... how long?  Now you've walked yourself into a corner with your broad and scandalous statements that are easily disproved.... again.

If you're expecting me to chalkboard where you are incorrect in your assumptions of your balance - too bad.  luke-jr has already stated what he (as the system designer - proof by attestation of a user with superior knowledge than either of us) that you are not owed the amount you claim.  Had you been more civilized, it has already been stated he would be more than willing to immediately pay you out at that amount.

You can continue to throw around words like "cheat" and "scammer" as well as attempting to be condescending in the discussion.... You can continue to insist your evidence is undeniable while continuing to literally wrap it in bullshit.... do you know what that gets you?  Do you realize what it has gotten you?

(hint: it's below this line)