And this is why YOU should not be making assumptions or predictions based solely on opinion
.
I dont. All my criteria are explicitly stated and applied as objectively as I can. Its not a matter of 'opinion', either the evidence is there, or its not.
The "shares" that you see there are NOT how long it took the "Pool" to solve the block, the "Shares" you see in that example are MY cloud shares that were submitted by ME. Please PLEASE tell me you were not so stupid to think that a bitcoin block today si only 216576 Shares You said and I quote
A block can be found after any arbitrary number of accepted shares, it all depends on network difficulty, the difficulty setting of the pool and :drumroll: LUCK.
What you still fail to understand is that your # submitted shares will correlate linearly with the # shares the pool needed to find the block, assuming roughly constant hashrate. So what I said is still completely ttrue, and if you are going to insult me after the nonsense you have been posting, I suggest you start your own thread where you provide proof that organofcorti and me have no idea what we're talking about.
You really need to study Ghash a LOT better.
The number of shares you see can correlate any way you want to rationalize it but the truth is those are the shares I was charged a maintenance fee on. I was not charged a flat rate per ghs per month as they state in their contractual agreement. those examples show you i submitted X number of shares and my maintenance fees are determined by the amount of shares my cloud put in. If this were not true would not each and every block mined have the same EXACT same cost in maintenance fees? If it was a flat rate charge per GHS per month, like they say, then each block should have the same exact fee right?
To be honest it would be hard to be fair and charge the same amount for each block because you dont know how many blocks could be solved i a month and they would still end up charging more than the flat rate they say they charge. I am not sure how they could do it to make it fair and reasonable, but what they are doing now is a flat faced lie and contradiction to their own agreement.
btw if they were really mining the miners would be not affected and working as usual. 
