Oh boy...

Nope, I'm not speaking for slush.

And that block in question was processed exactly how the system was designed.  It was said in a previous post that the score was reset right before the block was found which caused a higher variance in the scores through the pool.  So yeah, it was unlucky for alot of people, and lucky for a lot of people.  There are a lot of people that aren't happy about it, but that's the way it works.

Bitcoin in general is a high risk venture, kind of like playing the lottery.  And it's been said before that Slush's score method causes increased variance.  So by design, things like that are going to happen.  The point is that it balances out in the long run.  If you had a clear understanding of all the factors involved, you would care a whole lot less about that one block.  And for what it's worth, my reward was a lot smaller than normal too, but it happens.  I've had plenty of blocks that were higher than normal, but you don't see people complaining about that.

And it's great that you want an official response, you expect more from your pool operator right?  It's a symbiotic relationship, one can't exist without the other.  So if all these complaints don't get addressed everyone will leave and slush will be left in the dust right? Wrong.  All these complaints are coming from .1% of the miners on the pool who are new to the system, new to the pool, or expect a full service mining pool.

Slush takes care of his miners like no other pool operator out there.    Bottom line is the problem has been addressed plenty of times.  If slush is going to respond, he's going to respond when he's ready.  Continually posting about it does nothing but clutter the board and make it harder to isolate legitimate problems.

Sorry for the book, I'm gonna take a break from the bs now...