So ... how does deleting my post that says what you have just said make any sense?
Yes we know you've had moderator bias to Luke's lies for a very long time.
First, *I* deleted what was essentially a duplicate spammy post. (You quoted your own post in
this post then immediately again with nearly the exact same response. I left the first one, even though it doesn't belong here, but I figured you'd cry about it even more if I deleted both.
Anyway...
What you have said exactly states that Luke is lying.
It has nothing to do with the miner, it is the work that the pool provides and the protocol the pool uses.
Jumping ahead, since you're blaming GBT here somehow (beating a dead horse much?)... while still not valid, I'll point this out:
The Eligius block you refer to was generated using the stratum protocol. This is actually embedded in the coinbase text of the block's generation transaction.
see here. The "ss33" near the end means "Server/Stratum #3, Instance #3." GBT blocks start with "sg" and getwork just a single "s", both followed by a number.
Now if the pool is written so that it cannot handle quickly generating a new block, but instead generates an empty block that can me mined on for at least 15s ... then that is the pools fault, not the miner's.
Even worse, if the pool protocol does not allow it to tell the miner work with transactions VERY soon after a block change, when someone like you gives an excuse for the pool making the miners mine empty blocks, then that means that not only is the pool ignoring transactions, as you have stated above, but it is also using a protocol that allow this empty block to be mined for a long time ... at least 15s.
Now since blocks are regularly less than 600s (last diff they averaged under 510s) that means that a pool that does both of these bad practices is pretty much saying that they are getting their users to mine empty block ... quite a lot of their mining time.
Eligius actually immediately updates stratum work as soon as bitcoind returns a template. Since Eligius actually generates some of the the largest blocks on the network, with thousands of txns at times, this actually can take a couple of seconds at times, but usually is pretty immediate. However, the mining hardware/software on the other end is free to continue working on the original work until it expires as per the stratum protocol.
Now from a miner perspective that also means that you lose all the transaction fees that could have been in these blocks.
Oh well.
If you want to argue this, there are many rebuttals. However the most prominent is that txn fees account for less than half of a percent of miner rewards on avg, but time wasted not doing work while a new transaction list is pushed would result in a lot more losses I'm sure.
Anyway, I think the bulk of your argument is pretty much invalidated by the fact that you obviously don't know what you're talking about since you're blaming the protocol, then suggesting stratum, yet the block in question was generated using stratum...
If you continue on this topic pointlessly, remain clueless, and generally just spam this thread I will simply be deleting your posts.