I can guarantee you we have solved blocks worth substantially more than we have been paid.

Multipool has been paid 4x what they have contributed to the pool.  Maybe you think a $50k donation from all the other users of this pool is trivial.  I do not.

We are up about 58BTC right now.  Apparently you would have us take those earnings and leave, rather than stay around long enough for our luck to even out.

That would be bad for Bitminter.  Good for whom, I wonder?

Then you will continue to appear the fool.
Yes.   Make the statistically PROBABLE start to happen...
Perhaps there is a flaw in your software with this coin switching that messes something up?   Perhaps you made a mistake?  Not possible?   Maybe think about it.

You can throw all the FUs at me you want, it does not bother me.   Nor your other rants when you told me how stupid I was.   It is just provides the window so others can see the real you.

By the way, you leaving the pool does NOT cost the rest of us to lose money.   Think about that for a while.   Even if you eat some fiber and become more regular, it does not cost us anything.    Think hard about that because you said I could not do simple math but it seems you do not understand this very simple truth.

Maybe it's my profession to think about these things.  Maybe you wouldn't understand what that means.  If you did, you would have shut up a long time ago.

And considering you've been borderline stalking me since I entered the thread, I don't think you should be making any statements about my character.

I don't report to you or anyone else here.  I'll provide info I deem appropriate to relevant and reasonable parties [hint: not you] as I see fit.

Still waiting to hear what Entropy's username on Bitminter is so I can take a look at his mining stats.

Not to beat the Multipool-dead-horse further than the earlier discussion, but is it possible for them to split their cores between bitminter and SHA-altchains (namely, PPC and TRC), through a best-scenario failover of switching chains?  Because hashes are rather quantum in nature, are they not?  

So at no point would you instantaneously be able to tell from which IP the Multipool drill was hitting at exactly which time they report a solution.  This is similar to time-space-constrained problem one faces when trying to define the same properties for an electron (which, incidentally, is the particle we use as a medium to conduct the network itself).

When a pool server verifies that a share hasn't been submitted anywhere else, does it simultaneously account for the mining of merge-mined and non-merged chains?  I feel like if I set my chips to run along a certain spectrum of hashes to every SHA-256, beyond a certain precision, the time scale might be small enough to accepting work from one server on the BTC network, solve a TRC share, submit it to a TRC pool server, and then relay that acceptance verification back to the BTC network as a completed BTC share.

The new ASICminer/Rockminer r-box uses the AM gen3's.  I've noticed that while it cranks out the advertised 32-37 Gh/s (with T=40C has 1%+/-0.05% error) on the BTC network, it will cycle with a higher amplitude on the TRC network, moving from as low as 21 Gh/s to as high as 52 Gh/s.  Since Bitmain's ASIC chips echo nonces to tune their electric frequency, is it possible to use symmetric sets of them to "bounce" like this between SHA-256 networks and submit fake shares (throwing "bad luck" at victims) while aggregating the real solutions to parse a solo-mined block if they were to find a valid header?

I think this cross-SHA256 mining, along with the scale of precision of intranet data as it moves from source to pool server, might be a cause of the duplicate rejected hashes (i.e. when one accepted solution is returned, and then another identical hash that immediately follows is rejected as a duplicate).  

Why do these dups happen on the AM chip with regard to that specific architecture of that particular chip (and possibly others).  I tried to look up why the circuit would queue running the same piece of work twice, but couldn't find anything.  If the mining protocol is based on just throwing out hashes into empty string-sets, is it still possible to instantaneously insure that discrete substitutions like this aren't permitted in the protocol?  Any blocks reported as solved could be disguised by the attacker within the unknown IP category - one that's been growing at a rate similar to what we'd just gotten over with GHash.io.

Just throwing my thoughts out there to try and take it back to an academic discussion.

multipool has 240th   current block rate for 240th is 11 blocks in a month.

about 1 block every 2.7 days.


the last diff rate 240th should make 12.9 blocks a month about  a block every 2.35 days


so if a block is made in 2.7 days multipool luck would be normal

if a block was made in 5.4 days multipool's luck would be  lower then normal  I believe 1 in 4 chance

if a block was made in 8.1 days  multipool's luck would be  worse then above I believe 1 in 8 chance

if a block was made in 10.8 days    1 in 16

if  a block  was made in 13.5 days  1 in 32

now new diff will come so   the 2.7 days changes to  say 3.1  

if you go to 16.6 days 1 in 64 chance

if you go to 19.7 days 1 in 128 chance

if you go to 22.8 days 1 in 256 chance

if you got to 25.9 days 1 in 512 chance.

if you are this far   it  is going to make many people very angry  but diff changes again  

  so  say 3.5 days and you are now at 29.4 days   a 1 in 1024 chance.      and while they should have mined around 280-320 they would have 0

As a miner Just use 5 pools and since  there is only 1 bad luck canon you won't get fully hit.

 If the canon really exists  

 I will continue to keep mining here  and 3 other pools.  

I have about 420gh here.  
I will keep an eye on the multipool results.  
I will tell all that There is no real proof multipool has a BL canon.


  I will tell all pools  give a solo mining connection to give your self some protection and consider  putting any big player in the solo pool some of the time.
Also allow anyone that wants to try  their luck to go into the solo pool at will.

To multipool I say one thing if you are a good guy and legit and the Doc offers you a solo pool tryout would you agree to stay in it  until you hit at least 1 btc block.  Or if you don't hit a block solo for 10 days then you could come back to the full pool.  The fact is in 10 days you should hit just about 4 blocks.

 If you said you would do it it would prove you think your setup works.

 To the Doc if  you set the test up  I think other pools would follow.  If he says no to the test it is your pool.  

To all of us whether multipool is just having bad luck , or is a bad guy or has a bad setup with the gear  I have no idea.  

I do know this I am now in more then one pool  because this Bad luck concept seems to have been talked about at 3 pools now and in all three pools a big miner was

a factor with really bad luck.

So far I rate multipools luck here as a little bad no where near the bad luck issues at btcguild  and eligus  which involved  someone much bigger in size

 then multipool. this is why I don't think multipool was the person or person at the other two pools.

Curious about this. Perhaps my understanding of a 'block withholding attack' is inaccurate, but are you saying (bolded above) that if a block withholder finds a block they can keep the 25 BTC reward for themselves?

My understanding has been that they can withhold a winning block from the pool, but it wouldn't be seen as a 'winning block' to the bitcoin network (only to the pool) so they wouldn't get the 25 BTC reward either.

Just so.

so the 25 BTC are lost.

So what is the incentive here?
Is this like a goldfinger-tactic? Trying to increase the value of the bitcoins you already have by destroying other bitcoins?
Like the goldfinger guy from the james bond movie, who wanted to increase the value of his gold holdings by radioactively contaminating fort knox.