I hate to break this to you man, computers are designed as indoor devices.
Running them at temperatures below condensation point is just asking for trouble.
I don't care what's wrong with the GPU, all that really matters is that you're running your machine far out of spec. Thus undefined behavior should barely be a surprise.
I wouldn't dare to run hard disks in such low temperatures: the grease inside them thickens and you risk mechanical failure.

That's why I've been posting warnings about this in some other threads, P4.
If anything kills bitcoin it's will surely be a combination of greed and centralization that current pool designs bring.

Righto, mr Bear.

P4 is right. Whatever the explanation might be, rest assured that your hashing power is being used for shady purposes if any entity is paying >100% over an extended period of time.
P4 is right. Whatever the explanation might be, be advised that your hashing power might be employed for shady purposes if any entity is paying >100% over an extended period of time.
...at least until Santa Claus himself starts a pool.

EDIT::wording

RTFM:

I guess you should make your alternative client as user-friendly⁽¹⁾ as possible and go for the kill.
Easy, safe, secure: Electrum. Why not?
Be the nonref triple-fan design slapping the loud and inefficient reference one around.

My understanding is, Bitcoin desperately needs better clients if it's going to grow.
Look at the issues being constantly raised here: lost or stolen wallet files, slow block chain download, having to run -rescan... the issues are all client-side.

Notes:
(1) I'm not talking only about the UI here.

True but not exactly a surprise that they don't want the responsibility of having to worry about the alternative clients they endorsed.
Not gonna happen.
DAT is absolutely right comparing the official client to a reference-design device.

Pretty much.
I suggest you encrypt the wallet (Settings -> Encrypt Wallet) and do a backup once a month. Just don't store the backups on the same machine.

Unfortunately, such seems to be the truth. The official client is convoluted about the most important aspects. It buries the wallet.dat file where the average non-techie user can't find it, it does ZERO backups, and offers NO encryption by default. I raised all those issues at least twice but no one seems to want to listen.
Yeah, why didn't the devs (or any other user) write the code and merge it into the client? I suspect insufficient motivation.

Way safer? No way
Your approach does not resolve the issue of having to fall back to an ancient backup of the wallet file.

It's the end user's responsibility to properly manage wallet backups.
I can't say this is the prudent approach as only a minority of users can be expected to follow a secure backup routine.

EDIT::*nods head* Hello DAT. I requested that auto backups be done by default once the wallet has been encrypted but the devs seem to have turned the deaf ear.

Loving that ginormous gauge wires, Kokjo? Miner-porn right there.

If it only were that simple... The pool is always being repopulated, no problem there. Nothing for the client to warn about.
The problem arises when one has to rely on a very old wallet backup missing some of the recently-generated keys.

Already discussed over, and over, and over again, e.g. here
Do your research first, post advice later.

The traditional wallet contains, among other goodies, private keys for your bitcoin addresses. A pool of 100 yet-unused keys is stored inside it by default.
Every transaction you send, some of the incoming transactions, and every receive address you generate inside the client use one of those pre-generated keys which causes the key-pool to be repopulated with new keys.
A sufficiently old wallet backup will be out of keys which might render some of your bitcoins unaccessible.


Deterministic wallets are only supported by alternative bitcoin clients.

You're right with the thread jail, Costia. Sure could be useful to sanitize the forum whilst keeping old scam attempts visible to the general public.
Naturally, OP and his supporter have been reported and account access check-up has been requested.

Twitter regards FZB as violating its TOS. I don't think they'll be allowed to continue in this form and shape.

I like the idea, +1

You're the pool op, Doc; ultimately it's up to you. If your opinion is that the old machine is too crippled, by all means switch earlier.
I believe most sensible miners do have a multi-pool contingency plan set up?
The newbs... will be the newbs. They'll get hit whatever you do.

Personally, I switched pools for 12 hours when stales had spiked and all my rigs dropped temps by 1°C. I'm back now - provisionally.

The 3XXX series does not support OpenCL.

Did you see the 3410's efficiency? It's abysmal at only 0,074 MHash/J.
Some CPUs do better (e.g. Phenom II X6 1100T is twice as efficient) and still they're perfectly inadequate for the task.

Just forget that 3450, it's not going to work.
A very inexpensive 6750 card is an order of magnitude more useful for mining but still is barely strong enough to guarantee a single Bitcoin per week of 24/7 mining.

You are right DAT⁽¹⁾. On close inspection it appears I have taken that liquid for more than it actually is.
Thanks for kindly bringing this issue to my attention.

As much as I agree with doing extensive bleed testing of the assembled system, I'm afraid newbs will keep doing the newbish thing and run the machine ASAP :/
The same with security - some subjects which seem too complicated (or just non-intuitive) will constantly be overlooked.

Notes:
(1) As always, dang it

NP, all those firmwares bestow industrial-grade capabilities on the cheap, plastic router.
Best of luck, Giga, and do be careful not to brick your router by accident.