never mind.... this lucko isn't worth responding to.  get some logs when you engage your "backup to the backup" pool and come back and bitch with some real facts.  Until then, move the luck on and stop posting nonsense.

I've noticed a problem that has occurred twice over the past week or so. I run two GPU miners (with GUIMiner) at approximately 160Mh/s each. Now GUIMiner reports accepted shares, accepted shares for the last hour and network connection problems in its log. These are the only indicators of miner health directly available to me and are not evidence of anything.

What I have seen is that my miners report normal activity with no connection problems and yet one of the miners has no accepted shares reported on my account log on Slush's pool. The first occasion showed over six hours since the last share had been accepted; the second occasion showed over nine minutes without a share accepted.  On both occasions, the time since the last share accepted matched the time since a block was found on Slush's pool but not necessarily the last block.  It appears as if one of my miner's shares were no longer be credited after the pool's 'block found' event processing.

On both occasions, I stopped and restarted GUIMiner for the affected miner and share accepted activity on my pool account log resumed normally. The shares lost were not recovered.

Whilst it's true an increased total hashrate will bring the rewards down, surely (excluding Luck) probability dictates they should be more frequent.

show me the luck....

OK i have 3 blocks all 15% lower than average
17983
18000
18006


but whats worrying is my average earnings

March .25
April .20
May .10

Is everyone seeing this drop in earnings, as its getting to a point of not being worth mining

joolz

Do you have a log of the round for when the round started and when the shares were found? If so you can work it out  using the formula in this post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

and organofcorti is right the main reason for the low payout is the long round and the weighting share system. The sharp increase in difficulty makes cpu/single slow GPU mining basically finished.

So did Slush ask you to speak for him?  Just curious.

I would like something more official, like an actual comment from Slush about block 17925.  I have been following this thread for many dozens of pages and I have seen Slush come on here and say a block was miscalculated and see it adjusted.  I don't think "working as designed" describes a block where many people got about 1/10,000 of the estimated reward while others got 10-15 times more than the estimated reward.  That sounds like a problem.

Full time mining removes the probability factor over time so that it does not resemble playing the lottery.  Block 17925 looks exactly like playing the lottery.  It appears to be an anomaly based on what I have seen over time but nevertheless it indicates a problem.  If Slush says that problem doesn't exist or he doesn't want to address it that is one thing (and allows me to make an informed decision about where I want to mine) but if random interwebs guy says it (i.e. you) that means jack.

Finally I would point out to those with the browner of noses that this is a partnership.  No miners, no pool; no Slush no pool.  We all profit together or we all have no pool together.  It is in Slush's interests to keep his miners happy because that keeps the pool making profit for all.  This is not about us all simply benefitting from Slush's generosity.  I paid money to build my miners and I contribute actual computing power (such as it is) to the work of finding blocks.  Blocks don't just arrive in the mail and then get divided up by some benevolent pool owner.

Having said that I want to see a more or less reliable profit over time, which is the entire point of mining in a pool.  If I want to play the lottery I'll take up solo mining.

Has anyone noticed block 17941 was worth 28.55 coins.

(Sorry if that's too much of a newb thing to post and will upset some people)

Guys, seriously, shut up.

The problem has been reported.  It doesn't need to be reported over and over again.

And the most important point, THIS ISN'T A DEMOCRACY.  Just because a bunch of people want the algorithm changed doesnt mean shit.  Slush will do what he wants to do, and if you don't like it LEAVE.  Don't continually repost the same shit, because it's not going to make any difference at all.

Seriously, the quicker everyone realizes this, the better.

  "And after all - for majority of us the lost amount is rather insignificant - the daily income would be affected by a single-digit percentage. So - let's stop whining about it."   

Except that I had the exact same thing happen to me in the next block, too - meaning that I now distrust the reward calculations being made.  Even if the amounts being discussed are trivial, what is the point of mining at all if you aren't being paid fairly for the work you do?

I like Slush's pool, but have to consider moving over to a different pool if the problems here can't be resolved.  I don't mine for the money, I do it for the score and the BTC mined is how the score is kept.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.  I'm sitting her crossing my fingers it goes to confirmed.

I do and I had no problems... Well But I'm running with 2 account. One per computer... And using cgminer(better hashes) for GPU and GUIminer for CPU... But then you don't have such good control over the workers... If you see low hashes on page you need to look at computer to see if there is a problem...

And yes I noted that if a slow miner on his own worker send one share after more then 30 minutes all workers scores for all workers are reset to 0... And if that happens at the end of the round it is really bad...  You could get almost noting because of that... I can understand resetting the worker in question bat all. I don't get that...

EDIT: cgminer takes all GPUs and run them on one worker not the same as GUI that you need worker per GPU and CPU...

Worker accaunt...

Really?, have you spent time observing? - I don't think it's bad, but, it is the way it is, full stop.

K.

I thought it was made clear that the latest hashes/shares submittled had the highest score? it says it on his website (migration control if i'm not mistaken).

K.