If you want to ban users that show "suspicious behaviour" I hope you publish a detailed definition of what hopping is. I mean, can anyone define pool hopping for me please? If you say _exactly_ what you mean by pool hopping users can decide to stay or not.

Does pool hopping mean _always_ staying less than 43%? What if I stay always until 45%? Will you ban me? What if I stay in 10% of the rounds until the end of the round. Will you ban me then? Without a precise definition you are going for an unfair system.

@Tycho It's silly to compare pool hopping with bank robbery and you know it. I can just assume you show this behaviour because the majority of people apparently don't really understand what pool hopping is and how it exactly works. It's a hard to grasp thing, statistics can be hard to grasp. See the gamblers fallacy. It's hard to understand why leaving the pool at ~43% is optimal. But it's not stealing or such a thing of any kind! What you do is further spread misinformation, and if you call pool hopping bank robbery, I call this spreading of misinformation a crime.

I can understand that you want to keep your current hashing power and the pool size. Most or at least the visible majority doesn't seem to grasp pool hopping the way it is, so you hop onto their misunderstandings and keep the flawed proportional system. Why don't you try to convice people and help them understand the very simple(!) and perfectly fair PPLNS system?

The _only_ solution is to switch to a fair system or keep a fair one. What fair is, is also a matter of definiton, it might be proportional or PPLNS, but it's certainly not proportional with banning some users because of their miners schedule!