Shipping seems to be willy-nilly. They aren't even up to mid-November paid orders for direct customers yet, although it sounds like people who ordered after that on Minersource are getting shipments. This is the big discrepancy. In spite of what you want to believe, people aren't so stupid that they are only looking at order numbers when making these statements.

Anyone running a 0 fee pool should be suspicious. There is an ulterior motive somewhere, and understanding that motive would be required before any reasonable person would switch. Again, I'm not saying people are reasonable, but I'd have even less faith in mmpool if it went to 0 fee.

If you believe that only 25% of ghash is cex then more power to you. You might be the only one who believes that.

If he has his order already, he ordered way before there was any solid proof that this company was a sham. Way before there was any talk of compensation or the idea that it was better to buy 2 than 1.

The fee here is not the problem. I have benchmarked ghash.io against btcguild and eligius with equal hash rate over a period of several months. BTCGuild came out on top, and at the time it had a 3% fee and the other two were 0% fee. If there is one thing that will bring ghash users over it is more frequent blocks. Keep in mind that most people mining there are also using cex.io, and these are mostly people who think that 0.005 BTC and > 20% fees is a good price for 1GH/s. Not the brightest people.

So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.

Do you have any value to add?

He's probably mad that his personal X-1 doesn't perform well.

Sounds like a challenge.

The killer feature would be integration into the bitcointalk.org forum in some way.

We need an "upvote" function on the forums so we don't have to +1 these things. That's great.

We're not really sure this is legit yet. At this point I'd believe this is another attempt to string us along before I'd believe they actually shipped something to a customer.

That said, having paid over $60 US for shipping on a single X-1, it should come with some sort of insurance.

What I find hard to believe is that a company (BA) with such poorly qualified staff in every possible way was able pull one over on someone like bobsag3 when he was there in person. Twice. Take that statement whichever way you want.

Bobsag3 has done fine by me, I have no complaints any longer, but I do find it odd the way this has gone down.

All these people pretend like it takes hours of additional work to write a post that says "shipped ### units today, processed through order ###". After all, that's all the customers want to hear.

If you really think this is going to take off, and it just might, wouldn't you want the diff to stay low as long as possible?

Find different tools. I have Java free PCs and I start a VM if I need to run Java, and I do for several applications that I have to support. Most online tools do not have to run in Java, so be suspicious when they do.
Also, be careful to not confuse Java with Javascript.

I have the same problem with an S2. BTCGuild reports 1000 +/- a few percent consistently. I tried a few times to run it here but it hashes under 800 consistently. I doubt it is the gear since the issue exists nowhere but here.

There is no contradiction whatsoever in those statements. If anything it is a validation of what eleuthria said about stability here. I have always attributed the stability of BTCGuild to eleuthria's skills as an operator and suspect that if he were running ghash.io it would be more stable. I still think that is the case, but I also believe him when he says that keeping merged mining simple is a significant reason for that stability here.

The marketing message to newer or less informed miners is that ghash.io has more value because of its lower variance and merged mining. It doesn't matter if that reason should not be significant, it only matters that the marketing works. People believe it and mine there.

Just sad to see the industrialization of mining. I am nostalgic for the time when it took effort and thought instead of just capital to get involved.

Personally I think they are the worst. They had a good marketing message in the beginning and used it to pull one over on people who had been burned elsewhere. They knew what could happen and charged forward anyway - be that incompetency or scaming - either way they earn the #1 place for worst BTC company in my book. At least BFL shipped first generation jalapeno miners to me in time to more than break even with them in fiat, which is what I paid for them (yeah buying BTC with my fiat would have been much better). After that everyone who bothered to do research knew the risk they were taking making an order with BFL's reputation. Hashfast smelled like a company who had no idea what they were getting into from the beginning.

Look, all I'm saying is that ghash.io figured it out and does fairly well with over 4 times the hash rate of BTCGuild. mmpool.org figured it out with even more coins. BTCGuild should be able to figure it out. I'd just like to see more feature parity with the biggest pool because I don't think the current system is going to get better on its own. If I were making some amount of my income based on how much market share my pool had, I would be looking for any way possible to keep that income reasonably high without exceeding a certain threshold that would endanger the network.

Pick ajax stats, split payouts, merged mining, something anything to close the gap. Just my 2 bits.

Yes, I am currently mining here because it is the most stable pool there is. I'm also mining here because I want this pool to survive. As the mining corporations gather more network share, more private miners will tend to consolidate to fewer higher hash rate pools to reduce their variance. p2pool and Eligius can survive because they don't rely on a fee to run. I'm just worried about BTCGuild eventually becoming an abandoned pool like a few others have. Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead or being alarmist, but I thought I would try to share my concerns while there is still a chance to do something about it. It really has much less to do with the income those coins would provide than it does with the perception of value the pool provides.

I get that, but if there is one person who could do it well, it would be eleuthria. I would just like to see a strong competitor to ghash, not just people "sacrificing" one feature or another for the sake of the network. Ghash is reporting 47PH/s now. It isn't working out so well...

Seems unfortunate. I would think someone would want to start competing against ghash in every way possible. Obviously it isn't possible to run 0% without a subsidy like Cex backing them.

I don't think they care about you as much as you think they do.