The following is what I've observed for the last few weeks. I understand that the allegations that are being made here are serious, and the implications even more so. Someone has been getting screwed out of bitcoins, and that person is you. Yes you, the miners in slush's pool. I highly encourage everyone to save copies of as much of this as you can before it is covered up. Why you may ask? Well, I hate to break it to you, but Slush has been stealing blocks from his own pool, and that means you if you've been in his pool.
Allow me to elaborate with much detail.
For the last few weeks I've noticed a number of irregularities with the statistics page on slush's pool. From the same blocks being listed twice with different found times [block #114361, 113576] to blocks that were claimed to be for one block number but are in fact for the block after what is being claimed on the statistics page [block #114295, 113417].
The first irregularity was observed with block 113417 on the statistics page. When you follow the link from the statistics page, it takes you to block 113418. Block 113418 was paid out to slush's pool address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ], but is not listed on the statistics page. This begs the obvious question of who got block 113417? Using blockexplorer, we see that the block was generated, then after 120 confirmations passed, it was paid to [
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm ]. Remember this address.
The second irregularity was observed with block 114295. When you follow the link from the statistics page, it takes you to block 114296. Block 114296 was paid out to slush's pool address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ], but is not listed on the statistics page. This begs the obvious question of who got block 114295? Using blockexplorer, we see that the block was generated, then after 120 confirmations passed, it was paid to [
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm ].
The third irregularity was observed with block 113576. This block is listed twice on the statistics page with it being found first at 2011-03-15 04:04:11 then again at 2011-03-15 04:15:09. When you follow the first link it takes you to block 113576 on blockexplorer, but when you follow the second link it takes you to block 113577. This appears to be just a bug due to the fact that both blocks 113576 and 113577 were paid to slush's pool address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ].
The forth irregularity was observed with block 114361. This has the same bug as block 113576 where it was listed as being solved twice, but in reality blocks 114361 and 114362 were solved. Both of these blocks were paid to slush's pool address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ]. This too seems to be a bug in the code.
What we now need to focus on is the first and second irregularities with blocks 114295 and 113417. These are the smoking guns.
We'll start again with block 113417. The link for this block on the statistics page takes you to block 113418, and when you follow the generated bitcoins (50 + 0.02 tx fee) it is paid to the pool's address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ]. Block 113418 isn't on slush's stats page. Now look at block 113417 (which is listed on the stats page) with blockexplorer, and when you follow the generation and payment of that block it goes to [
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm ].
The exact same type of behavior has also happened with block 114295. The link on the statistics page takes you to block 114296 instead of 114295. Block 114296 was paid to slush's pool address [ 12WFtKBsRLtV8p1NwRqe7YwYdi1rjwTZhA ] but is not listed on the stats page. When we look at block 114295 (which is listed on the stats page), and follow the generated bitcoins (again, 50 + 0.02 tx fee) it shows it's been paid out to address [
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm ].
Lets take a closer look at address
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm with blockexplorer.
A quick glance at this address shows it has been collecting generated bitcoins (50 + small tx fees) since 2011-02-11. Up until yesterday it had received 4800.69 bitcoins. A quick look at the slush's hall of fame shows slush has 96 blocks found. If you drop the 0.69 in transactions fees, then divide 4800 by 50, you get 96 blocks.
4800btc / 50btc = 96 blocks
This matches slush's number of blocks found in the hall of fame. Coincidence, I think not!!!While is was clearly noticeable to those who have watched this the last few weeks, something changed in the last 24 hours as slush's block count in the hall of fame hasn't increased from the 96 blocks it is currently sitting at, but the received balance of account
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm has increased by 100 bitcoins. It appears I've missed something.
After doing some digging as to what would have caused slush's block count to stop increasing while this address is still collecting bitcoins I stumbled across a post on the bitcoin forums from a user (h00ters) who accused slush of “Slush is taking BTC from the top when no one watches..... “. The message from h00ters was posted at 2011-03-22 05:46:38 in the bitcoinpool.com thread. Now take a closer look at the last 3 blocks found by [
1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm ] with the time of h00ters post.
All times are listed in UTC.
Block 114425 (2011-03-21 17:00:59)
Block 114557 (2011-03-22 17:13:51)
[h00ters post] (2011-03-22 17:46:38)
Block 114706 (2011-03-23 17:39:59)
Slush has stated his hall of fame page is delayed by 1 hour
, which leaves him enough time to see the post from h00ters, and put a stop on his block count from going up.
I don't know about you, but this is just too much evidence and too much of a coincidence for me to continue mining in slush's pool. I firmly believe that he has in fact been skimming from the top, and to top off this entire day slush is now having problems with his wallet.dat file and can't pay anyone out, and has quit tracking confirmed rewards as of a few hours ago. I believe he has realized that a bug in his code ultimately has results in two blocks revealing what it is he's been doing since 2011-02-11. h00ters called him out, and he is now in a panic to try and undo his mistakes. I don't know about you, but 4900 bitcoins being taken by the pool operator from his own pool is enough to make me say I've had enough of slush's pool and I will not continue to help him put more bitcoins into his personal slush fund.
You can verify this with slush's past 1000 shares at:
http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/?history=1000You can also look at slush's solved block count at:
http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/hall-of-fame/ An archived copy of the last 1000 shares as of 03-21-2011 is at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?k3g27u2w45l235m An archived copy of the last 1000 shares as of 03-14-2011 is at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?s7fbwxwlb62uwaf If you know what's good for you, get out of this pool. Any other pool is probably more honest than this pool.
Hey slush, I'm out of your pool forever.
/"\
|\./|
| |
| |
|>~<|
| |
/'\| |/'\..
/~\| | | | \
| ={@}= | | \
| | | | | \
| ~ ~ ~ ~ |` )
| /
\ /
\ /
\ ____ /
|--//''`\--|
| (( +==)) |
|--\_|_//--|
. As the issue with transactions will be solved, I'll open registration again. 
.