I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.
So, anyone who experiences negative variance will be accused of being
witches block withholders? I see that working well. Given recent history, about 8% of the pool would be so accused. If you keep kicking off the lowest performing 8% of the pool it wont be long until you have just one miner left.
Actually they were well past 95% before bailing out.
I'll have to take your word for it - I don't have any more recent data.
95% confidence is the level generally accepted as statistically significant in industry. Billion dollar decisions are made off 95% confidence.
That depends very much on the industry, and repeated measures have different measures of confidence.
All I suggested is that his payments should be withheld until we establish what is going on. Now he's gone.
So if you want to nitpick, I'm 95% confident he cheated all the members of this pool out of around $50k.
I mentioned before that, in the days of 50 btc per block rewards, I solved one block, but did 3 blocks worth of work. On most pools I solved no blocks at all. Did I cheat those pools out of $50 000? Are you also 95% certain that the 5% of pool members that have had similarly bad luck are also cheating this pool?
It would be interesting to see how many users are up 75 BTC on payouts versus blocks solved. It most certainly won't be 5%. I doubt it is 1 in 1000. And anyone in that kind of extreme situation should be scrutinized.
You seem to be obsessed with having a pedantic debate on statistics. I have absolutely no interest in that. If you want to CONSTRUCTIVELY discuss how public pools can be defended in an environment where people are actively trying to cheat them I would be very interested in seeing what you think.