I should learn to write more clearly. I don't claim you are cheating, I'm sure it is very well possible that you do find blocks when you say you do. However, the data you provide on your site is plain wrong. Not being transparent about what your pool finds is usually an indication that you might be altering the list of blocks you find, but I currently have no proof that you are indeed cheating.
Actually, I've found it to shown some insight into "cheating" pool operators. Look at ecki, they find a block from time to time, but their data is never correct - every time another pool found the same block - pools I know that are not incorrect...
Well if you are talking public on a board end of April about "cheating pool operators" and mention our pool as an example, I think it would be at least fair if you would contact me by PM or Email and ask for explanation.
Do you agree?
Instead you are telling me about 4 months later: "I don't claim you are cheating."
Your end of April announcement sounds very different from your current statement to me.
May be you can rephrase it?
Please keep in mind that you can easily destroy reputation of a pool by stating that the pool operator is cheating!
I strongly recommend looking into it. Also, please do NOT supply people the block number, although that number is informative, it is more useful to give the block hash, or generation hash for the blocks you find. A simple listtransactions on your bitcoin client will give the generation hash for the blocks, and publishing that information will make sure that I have correct information, as calculating the block number is somewhat difficult, and implemented completely wrong on your site.
Well this "implemented completely wrong" looks to me that we just report the blocks which we found with +1, so the previous block should be ours.
I let the programmer fix this problem today.
Again, please give everybody the chance of feedback before you blame him in public "cheating" in future.
Thanks for that in advance.
Sunny regards from holiday island Koh Samui,
P.S.: Nevertheless I like your chart. Good work!Edit 6.9.2012 13.00 h:
The original program code subtracts -1 from the block number (for no reason?), this bug has been fixed now in our current code.
Right now we are reworking all the block numbers in our database so that the "Last 30 Blocks Found" list should be correct in a few hours.