Was that around June 14th? Thats when the maximumpps shorting system was implemented.
maybe if you link to your stats page it will be easier to research, like this:
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/1QEkXwhhHbaBCfmEHY7bh8QNPVkFtorQkKNow for that address, you can see the maximum pps shorting did it's job during these rounds:
1h2m 4s 3,338/145,196= 2.2990 % 0.29390580 BTC (should be 1.1495)
16m43s 854/39,560= 2.1587 % 0.07508482 BTC (1.07935)
3h22m34s 5,498/470,841= 1.1677 % 0.48443702 BTC (.58385)
1h38m18s 5,022/239,107= 2.1003 % 0.44257700 BTC (1.05015)
29m49s 1,578/72,605= 2.1734 % 0.13906552 BTC (1.0867)
1h23m24s 3,817/176,193= 2.1664 % 0.33638325 BTC (1.0832)
For a total shorting of around 4BTC which wasn't made up for (by even .01BTC) in the longer round below that awarded the expected amounts of 50 BTC * % contributed:
4h 34m 14s no reimbursement
1h 33m 52s no reimbursement
4h 6m 41s no reimbursement
9h 33m 13s no reimbursement
3h 22m 34s no reimbursement
2h 9m 54s no reimbursement
Coupled with the almost 7 BTC that the pool acknowledges it owes him but presumably has not yet made plans to pay him, I can see why this miner left and never returned to eligius.
If you have any disagreement on the math, PLMK where my mistake was.
There's a reason why all the top hashers have been with eligius less than 1 week:
After someone screws you out of BTC, would you keep mining with them?
Hopefully he won't do it to the new users, but you've all been warned. . .
There was an evidence denial posted recently, so, I'm reposting the evidence (see above) which was never refuted.
The poster didn't use basic discussion principles, so I can't really respond other than trying to steer him back to the factual evidence under discussion.
Here's the stats summary for the unpaid rewards on that typical miner loss I examined above:
you'll notice, adding the 2 together, the admitted debt is closer to 7 than 6BTC, so please don't nitpick the rounding, which was on the fly, 6.7 is "almost 7"