Quote from: Fortega on September 15, 2014, 09:01:37 AM

Quote from: Luffy27 on September 14, 2014, 04:46:04 PM

[...]

Hashrate growth / Deployment speed doesn't look bad at all. I'm very excited for the next few days.

Payouts in the last 10 days don't necessarily mean the same amount is mined in the last 10 days. In theory, they could be mining since july and only now configure the payout options on btcguild for example. So you should be careful about statements about hashrate growth and deployment speed.

That is definitely true. Especially the 8 payouts for 80btc on September 11 to the official mining address most likely weren't mined on the 11th itself. I do believe they were mined after this transaction though: https://blockchain.info/de/tx/fe5c9322bc331cab85b60704f07d318830e5a298618c5048c770633300902f65 (looks like a corresponding BTCGuild account was cleared and then configured for automated payout on September 11. This is of course very speculative). It probably really was/is too early to make any statements regarding deployment speed. We can assume hashrate is growing since 50 days though.

Quote from: webbrowser on September 15, 2014, 12:08:47 PM

[....]
Yet, I'd trust that btcguild has a pretty good idea of each user's hash power, and their fastest user is still 566620 at 2.4PH.

I suppose the payout address could be the same for multiple users. But in that case, why not use one single payout address, instead of splitting into 2 (or more)?

Well we know that User 67117 most likely still belongs to asicminer as well (http://mineforeman.com/2013/02/15/67117-identity-reviled-its-asicminer-now-at-2-ths/). Aside from that I don't have any idea which Pool accounts might belong to asicminer, I'm just looking at the blockchain.

Quote from: jjdub7 on September 16, 2014, 07:25:37 AM

New post to highlight significance. Funds moved out of original (old solo) mining address to https://blockchain.info/address/1ERszMSERwHNR9Xty73KZXpsg1jjBXWcHh.

This address in turn links to many of the other addresses mentioned through a ~500 BTC transaction to https://blockchain.info/address/16V3hoVfbQmpQQpCSkAirjVHGfSFoDFSbW (to sign these tx's, FC would have to hold the private keys to all inputs), including, most notably:

https://blockchain.info/address/19iVyH1qUxgywY8LJSbpV4VavjZmyuEyxV
https://blockchain.info/address/3MkwFfGNQDve7vz1z6gUDVxkuQpcSV3Mz8
https://blockchain.info/address/13p5iQkqBEVgKmPeJqEL2LBRS44PjX1dZL
https://blockchain.info/address/1KryFUt9tXHvaoCYTNPbqpWPJKQ717YmL5

[...]

Sorry, I don't quite get it. Please elaborate a bit if you find the time. My thoughts:

- Official mining address forwards to https://blockchain.info/de/address/1ERszMSERwHNR9Xty73KZXpsg1jjBXWcHh (which could already be controlled by someone different than friedcat, couldn't it? Could be some exchange.)
- IF it is indeed controlled by friedcat, then for example all inputs in this transaction ( https://blockchain.info/de/tx/e63990fc8ff8d19479a93698ed7dfb1169221657431be51b485a58fb8941a6b1 ) should be controlled by friedcat as well.
- 3MkwFfGNQDve7vz1z6gUDVxkuQpcSV3Mz8 is never an input of a similar transaction I could find. So where do you get proof that it is controlled by asicminer?