Quote from: tl121 on February 22, 2016, 03:04:24 PM

If you believe Slush's explanation, which I do, then it is seems inappropriate to refer to this situation a "block withholding attack". A better term would be "block withholding bug".

As to people who believe that Slush "owes" them something. We all had access to the same information and had the opportunity to move our hash power months ago, once it was clear that something was wrong. I stopped mining at the pool some months ago, once it was obvious that the bad "luck" was almost certainly not luck.

Thank you, You have right, i will use "bug" instead of "attack", sorry
I did exactly as you Wink

Quote from: pekatete on February 22, 2016, 01:16:00 PM

Quote from: Herv12 on February 22, 2016, 12:41:23 PM

The question is not whether an attack may be good or bad for the pool manager (I have the same opinion as pekatete on that) but whether this with-hold attack has really taken place!

Phew, thats a relief! Somebody actually has an opinion congruent to mine on at least one aspect.

Thank you,
On this point you are right, it's not debatable

Quote

Quote from: Herv12 on February 22, 2016, 12:41:23 PM

If slush had increased the power displayed his pool for exemple +10PH (no one can know if the indication is true), it dims the incomes of miners and pool keeps the difference.

I fundamentally dis-agree with this, both in terms of the motive for slush to "lie" about the hashing power of the pool, and in terms of dimming / reducing the incomes of miners. For example, if a pool displays its hash power as 30PH when it is actually 20PH
1. The pool will only be earning circa 20PH worth of rewards
2. The pool will report lower luck because it is only earning 20PH worth, which is less than what is computed for 30PH
3. The miners will only be paid what the pool has earned
4. Miners will STILL be earning proportionately to their real hash power and therefore will NOT loose anything.

Unless you are saying that slush's setup is by far very superior to any other pool / mining operation on the network to an extent that he needs to fake his hash power so that pool luck reported is within the generally published values (but on this accassion something went wrong), then your assertion is flawed. I can not fathom any other plausible reason why slush would want to inflate the pool hash power.

1) Yes, but exactly same if there is a withholding bug , impossible to see any difference
2) Yes, but exactly same if there is a withholding bug , impossible to see any difference
3) Yes, but exactly same if there is a withholding bug , impossible to see any difference
4) No because Payment of the minor = Block value x minor hashrate / total hashrate, if you increase displayed hashrate more than real hasrate of pool, you stole your minor... They loose = Real hashpower of pool PH / ( declared hashpower of pool)

It is totally impossible to see difference between a withholding bug and a false increase of total hashrate.

Personally, I have no opinion, I do not accuse slush, I see the facts, that's all.
I have pointed some of my miner since two weeks and at the moment I am quite happy

Anyway when we got caught in the teeth several hashrate increases of over 10%, this problem appears very small now ... Cry