I don't completely understand the payout queue.  My address has been moving up and down in the queue so much I was thinking there was something wrong.
Wouldn't I just steadily move up the queue over time as addresses above me are paid out?  It doesn't appear to be like this.

When I start the new version 0.2.7 it displays this error pop-up:



If I click OK the GUI appears and eventually connects to the network and appears to work normally.

And yet the MSM are keeping closer and closer track of BTC aren't they? 

Still there's really little technical difference between the coins.  I straddle both BTC and LTC communities and I suspect I'm not alone.
I honestly don't think there is a "Litecoin community" versus a "Bitcoin community".  There *is* an electronic currency community.

eligius.st seems to be offline.  My miner is still connected so it seems to be a DNS issue.

Why wouldn't LTC suffer from the same (perceived) hoarding problem?  People are people and the technological basis of the 2 coins is essentially the same.

DC has its problems but I'll say that the recession didn't hit us anywhere near as hard as elsewhere.  Lots of work and real estate prices have held up.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!  My eyes are bleeding from seeing Finnish!

Levity aside, were you basically saying that holding gold instead of Euros was safest at this point?

Your argument is specious at best.  One could apply the same logic to possessing child pornography by saying "They're just computer files with 1's and 0's in them so how can they be legal or illegal?"

Governments can declare anything they want legal or illegal through whatever legislative process they have.  Could the declaration be silly and unenforceable?  Of course.  That being said, the govt could still throw a big damper on BTC and drive it back underground where it started (Silk Road, etc)

The easiest government attack on BTC is to ban exchanging it for fiat currencies like USD.  Another easily enforced attack would be to declare it illegal for use as payment by stores.  Imagine a time in a few years where BTC has become more widely accepted to the point where Amazon accepts it.  This situation might cause concern for the US govt.  If mainstream online and brick-and-mortar stores were to be banned from accepting BTC (easily enforceable) it would effectively shut down BTC.

Activities like mining BTC, possessing BTC, exchanging BTC for goods and services between individuals couldn't really be banned at least not enforceably.
But nonetheless BTC would be driven back into the shadows.

It was perfectly clear in their statement that markets for exchanging BTC for fiat currencies are to be regulated (not banned, not illegal).
It was also perfectly clear that buying things (i.e. goods and services) is not illegal and not to be regulated.

It was all spelled out plain as day.

You don't need more than 8 connections anyway.  There is no benefit from having more connections.

Having more connections isn't better.  The default limit is 8.

The broader question is "what happens to bitcoin as coins inevitably leak away irrecoverably due to lost wallets, forgotten passwords, incorrect destination address, etc"

Due to this bigger issue, the amount of circulating BTC will constantly decrease over time.  What effect will this have?

Bah.  A week from now no one will be talking about it.

I do believe this thread has descended into a nerdy yucking contest.

Those look like Raspberry Pies.

Maybe Sweden could do something sensible like cut back (or eliminate) their silly government-mandated minimum vacation days of 25 f@#$%& days.

Of course if they did that there'd be civil war.

Some appropriate song lyrics to start your morning (shades of Great Britain in the sixties):

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't forget "--gpu-vddc x.x"  If you overclock you might have to overvolt as well.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be."