I can and did!!! He needs to at the very least come with the hardware if this is even a credible story.. Still no comment.. like i said if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.> Only a fool would continue to mine here. Just my two bits anyway.. If he is lying about this what will come in the future that he will hide..
Slush you need to come out with the type of miner and firmware to make this story remotely credible. Until then i have my thoughts as to what really happened.. Just contiue to stick your head in the sand.. It appears your miners are more naive than i first thought.. Ehh to each their own i guess.
best Regards
d57heinz
Nonsense! The only thing that quacks like a duck in all this, and thus is a duck is yourself. If a fool is described as one that mines at a pool with above average luck (198%, 117% and 110% for 1 day, 7 days and 30 days respectively), then whoever does not mine there, or advises not to mine there, must be an accomplished idiot.
In all this, bear in mind that some pools piggy-back on others to improve their luck and lure miners to their pools, and some operators have gone on record to detail their methods of sabotaging other pools that piggyback onto them thus you can not rule out the very real possibility that some pool operator targets another with a block withholding attack, simply to suppress that pool's luck and lure miners to their pools.
I actually believe slush gave a cover story for the block with-holding attack and the real culprit is another pool. Saying that, I have every confidence in slush's ability to handle this better than any other pool operator on planet bitcoin. Pool mining is about trusting the pool operator and slush being the pioneer pool (and stratum protocol architect) can not put his reputation out to hang over a 4 month block with-holding attack by misleading miners. If anything, slush holds the miner's best interests to the forefront in everything that he does, and questioning that should raise more questions about intentions.