The PPS rate at GPUMax have dropped a lot since this Pirate (our pool operator/owner?) run away with our coins.

Am I right?!

Quick! Everyone increase your price!

I wanted to get a feel for how much public work there is - so I went out at current PPS last night.  I got zero public work if that tells you anything.

There used to be a lot more prop pools.  I think that plays into it.

GPUMAX was never good for hopping, if purchases started instantly it could work...

If you had high stales and ran CGMiner my 2 day testing points to use a lower scan time. I am using 30 now for gpumax. I still think not passing work through but being dead when no public work is available would be better.

I figured that I should post this here, for anyone still considering being a 'GPUMAX Miner'.

I will be adding Zach Nakaska to my Legal Complaint/Process as a Co-Conspirator in the BTCST Fraud case.

As it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that BTCST Funds were used to pay GPUMAX Miners and funds from both 'enterprises' were co-mingled without denial and even offered up under the guise of being a 'security measure' by one of the Operators, I don't see any other way to increase pressure and continue to move forward.

It is also no secret that Zach Nakaska was the infamous 'zux0r' the main GPUMAX administrator and technical person.

I feel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but due to the scope of this, I feel it's best to offer up any known connections and participants that can also he held liable to an extent, regardless of what extent and allow the lead investigating party or District Attorney to sort everything out and chose what is pertinent and what is not. This is not something new and establishing participating parties is common.

Anyone who chooses to stay and be a part of GPUMAX from this point, I can only wish the best of luck to.

Thanks for your time.

So in your mind because some of the same bitcoins moved into BTCST and through gpumax it is a fact that only pirate of zuxor could have moved them? I ask because I got more then enough in payments from BTCST to put a couple of small runs on GPUmax. I also got out early enough that I had no issues and feel sorry for those that did. What you hint at but never actually say is that you have links to funds from a wallet only used for deposits by BTCST depositors paying out money for gpumax payments if I understand your shadow of a doubt correctly. Besides shadows of doubt not being the legal requirement, at least in the US a REASONABLE DOUBT is all that is required.
You can find no reason why pirate could reasonably have put a run through on GPUmax? Someone with a lot of say in purchase timing (manually triggering them) couldn't hop a prop pool? I hear that you can make 30% from that. So if Pirate paid out 7% and hopped for ~20% he should wind up ahead like 13%. Now there are some expenses to concider that being the miners extra profit over PPS. I would assume that pirate could actually type in his own price. Maybe he can't but I would bet that he could. I don't know about you but I do doubt that there isn't a reasonable doubt as to how someone trying to make money with enough control to time when his purchases go through and what he paid could use GPUmax to hop.
I do understand how co-mingling the funds may look bad but apparently they didn't deny or hide that it was happening. That doesn't sound like fraud. Fraud is "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." Sourced from dictionary.com. Not denying it says that deciet and trickery are out. Breach of confidence unlikely as apparenlty it was public knowledge. Perpetrated to gain a dishonest advantage, (over who?) the investors they aren't competing, the miners they got paid. Dishonest advantage again who is the competition. Sharp practice.... overly acute or cutting practice... Ahh crafty or decietful dealings. Crafty, yes getting people to invest into a trust with no insurance is a little crafty. Decietful, again it sounds like most of what was done is rather in the open. Assuming one could prove a Ponzi scheme then sure it would be fraud. Pirate played the exchances it looks like (took credit for) and made money off the swing (price differential low to high). That isn't deceptive at all. He even admitted to doing it. As far as the co-mingling money goes would it legally matter if 10 BTC goes into the wallet for a GPUMax purchase then 10BTC goes out of said wallet from monies that where intrusted by the trust? Technically money (loosly since it isn't a recognized currency) is fungible. Legally it tends not to matter where the specific money you paid out came from only that the books balanced. That having been said if something illicit was the source of said money anything paid for with illicit funds would be seized. But so far it doesn't sound illicit.
 Do you know where every BTC you spend came from before you send them? With the exception of sending all I truely doubt it. I paid my BTCST gains to BFL through bitpay for an upgrade on my FPGA hardware. I can't easily prove that none of those gains would be in my wallet. Heck could the passthrough operator have changed what coins got sent to me? I think it is possible. It doesn't mean that I stole from anyone. I generally have less then 100% proof where each bill in my wallet came from. I bet a lot of people couldn't say where a specific single in their wallet came from assuming it wasn't marked. Even then it would be fairly unlikely when they went to spend money that a bill from one place didn't get paid at another.
As an aside since bitcoins are not a currency and technically BTCST didn't actually legally exise as a bank or savings and loan or any sort of financial institution. Also since it was not a financial institution technically I find it likely that no insurance was applied for on the not legal tender contained there-in. Add to that that prior to 1930 most banks in the US did not have any insurance for the funds they contained and when a run on them happened most banks of that nature folded up. To say that a run on uninsured coins closed up a non FDIC unsured non financial institution seems the opposite of suprising. As a matter of fact it sounds like the start of the Great Depression. I know everyone that lost their money likely has a Great Depression right now but unlike actual banks this trust was not insured, had no oversight and likely the people who put money there should have expected 100% losses. I doubt anyone actually had never recieved a single payment. It is possible but new accounts closed months before so only the people in a uninsured passthrough after the interest rate drop being their timing for a first deposit would be in that boat. I am not trying to make light of others losses. I know that people likely needed that money badly. I know that the temptation for incredible gains outweighed their security in their personal wallets too.

Don't get me wrong I hope that everyone gets paid back. I wish you luck.

PLEASE WRITE in PARAGRAPHS instead of a single longgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg statement.