.0027 to .00046.
Something very strange happening at this moment. All of a sudden the numbers in the user statistics pages look very odd. I think slush secretly moved to the DGM payout system.
Sluuuuuuuuush, can you hear us?
This is something entirely different and I believe this is not so much an issue with the site but with the scoring algorithm
See the full explanation here:
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1976.msg50002#msg50002The below graph shows that this algorithm will occasionally have DRASTICALLY low payouts if you fall into the group that exists in those severe drop offs in the graph. You should also notice, if you look closely, there is a noticeable increase on payout for those that fall into the group right to the right of the drop-off. Basically, some people are getting overpaid and some underpaid for blocks. Slush fixes them a lot of the time, but not always. When your estimated payout drops to almost nothing, you are in that nasty trough in the graph.
http://i53.tinypic.com/j91onp.jpgWhat I've seen Slush fix is when the scoring gets way off. (and as you mentioned - not always)
From observations it appears that individual miner's shares are tracked by different servers (and thus separate databases). So when the round ends each of those separate databases would have to be combined. What I've noticed is that I caught on a few occasions the web site reporting partial results - as if some of the separate servers had not reported their data yet. So if I look at my number of shares I'd see just a fraction of the total number.
And I suspect that was the issue that we had in the past - if during the round you disconnected/reconnected (even very briefly for 0.1sec) part of your shares would be on one server and another part on a different one. If at the end they don't get combined you'd get the missing shares issue. And that's what Slush had to manually fix (but that's my guess).
So back to the question - it seems to be the reverse case - when you get extra points because just the database containing your shares made it to the server that combines everything, so as a result it distributed the BTC among fewer people (and every one of them got more than expected).
The change that I've noticed recently is that everything is much more reliable and the various databases are much more consistent and (almost) always manage to combine the data. I think it's been more than a few weeks since we've had those severely underpaid (and for some overpaid) blocks.
