Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the super-quick reply too!

Hey Tycho, under "Statistics," what happened to the percentage we're doing better or worse than the current expected difficulty? I just refreshed the page and it went missing. I always like to look at it and gauge how our luck is doing.

I don't know if Tycho would have any additional input to this, but it just sounds like a simple server error to me. No one would be able to steal any shares already submitted, the only way you would be getting ripped off would be if your account was compromised and your wallet address for receiving rewards was changed. Even at that, your shares would still be counted towards your account. As long as your payouts are staying consistent, I wouldn't worry about any shenanigans going on.

EDIT: Holy crap! Where did the extra 30Gh/s come from all of a sudden? 168Gh/s?! This pool is now as fast as Slush's, at least for the moment. Indeed, good job everyone!

EDIT 2: It seems a large cluster has been DDoS-ing the pools recently. It would explain the instantaneous 30Gh/s increase. However, unlike the other guys, pool connectivity has remained and the website seems to be holding up just fine too, so props goes to Tycho as always for having such a bullet-proof mining pool.  

I'm getting this error today:

Please correct the errors below and resubmit.
Insufficient funds in our accounts. Try again later

Any plans on topping up the account in the near future?

I really do enjoy the convenience of this service and would appreciate the opportunity to continue its use.

From my understanding, a stale share is one that has already been solved, or whose calculation is no longer needed. Invalid shares will also show up in that percentage, those being indicative of possible stability issues. Having such a low percentage of stale shares may very well be due to very low latency to the server. Services like Verizon's FiOS have fantastically low latencies.

I know a little bit about the effects of latency because I run four python GPU miners on one Satellite connection, and more often than not, whenever there is a new block, there is at least on stale share per miner. My roundtrip latency to any given server is anywhere between 1000-2000ms, and at 220MH/s on my fastest machine, that can translate to quite a few wasted shares.

3.09375* BTC per share, dang, I wish I had one too...

Edit: (Quick-math fail the first time.)

I was having an issue with a Liberty Reserve funds addition at Mt. Gox, this is what they had to say:

"Hi,

Could you send me the details about your LR transaction (the batch number should be enough) and your mtgox account name?

Looks like LR api is still not fully working...


Thanks,
Mark"

Once I sent the information, the funds cleared:

"Hi,

Your funds have been credited to your account. We will try to check this LR problem to see exactly why it's not working fine.


Thanks,
Mark"

Edit: And yes, Deepbit seems to be having some intermittent connectivity issues today. Well, by the looks of my miners, about 40 minutes of an outage this last time.

As I was typing, service came back up: 42 minutes of downtime.

As has been stated numerous times, CPU mining really is not profitable at this point in Bitcoin. You will most likely spend more on electricity than you will make mining.

A suggestion for anyone with an office computer with an available pci-e slot:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=sapphire+5670&hl=en&biw=1016&bih=935&prmd=ivns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=1275012490375071464&sa=X&ei=vfuTTYiuHo6ksQOPmtjDBQ&ved=0CGcQ8wIwBQ#

The 5670 will get you about 75MH/s or so and does not need external power, meaning you can probably use the generic power supply that comes with just about any computer. Depending on shipping, it costs about $80 USD which is a much more sound investment, in my opinion, than finding a better CPU for an older motherboard.

At Pay per share of 0.0006/share, given that 1MH/s equates to about 1 share an hour, that's about 75 shares an hour (1800 shares/day), which is 1.08 BTC/day. You can recoup your costs in a little over two months if nothing changes.

If I'm not mistaken, the difficulty has gone down a bit recently, from 75k to 60-something (sorry I'm only back mining these last few days.) I think when I started it was 55k, and people were saying how insane the jump had been in the preceding two weeks. I think once the whole Slashdot effect wares off (if it hasn't already) the difficulty should at least be more stable than the jump that occurred during that influx.

Anyway, the suggestion is just my opinion. I know there are numerous projects for CPU mining, I just don't think anyone with less than a multi-socket setup will see any tangible return, and if anything, they will see a large power bill, which will only increase once summer gets here, when running the A/C doubles the price paid per kW/h of any heat-generating appliance.

Is there a non-volatile way to add rows or do I have to redo the equation for each row in the spreadsheet every time I want to add a new block? 

Edit: I finally figured out what was going wrong, I wasn't paying attention to where I was clicking, the equations do auto-adjust to row number. My friend gave me a handy equation for filling out the forms: "60/min*amout" So it's 60, divided by the minutes the block took, multiplied by how much you earned that block; very handy.

It has not been a good day for us proportional users... 

I have this odd problem of bitcoin-miner.exe working for a few seconds and then going idle for a few seconds as it works. I'm running A Phenom II X6 on Windows 7 64-bit. I'm using these switches: "bitcoin-miner.exe -t 5 -a 10 -o http://deepbit.net:8332 -u x@x.x -p x" I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong maybe? Has anyone else had this problem? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

-edit: This also happens on my secondary computer running three threads on a quad-core. Is there some specific configuration that is required for 64-bit? That is what the two computers have in common so that's the only thing I can think of, other than some connectivity problem with deepbit. I will try running as just a solo-miner to test.

-edit 2: Running with an address of http://127.0.0.1:8332 fixes the problem. I think this is purely an issue of latency, I have satellite internet and the roundtrip time for anything is ridiculous. For whatever reason, poclbm works okay. I guess I'll have to stick with gpu-only mining until I get better internet. Anyway, as far as performance, I get about 15 MHash/s using 5 threads on my AMD processor, so I don't think this is poorly optimized for AMD or anything. Anyone having performance issues using AMD might be some other issue.

Slush was actually very nice in the handling of disabled accounts. I had accumulated about 0.45 BTC and once the blocks are verified, it will be transferred to my account. No one was screwed out of anything, and hopefully once this is all back up and running, we can all generate more BTC.