As a matter of fact, a percentage of my rigs do run at p2pool.
This situation (using one's own bitcoind for mining purposes) is, however, a special case most miners won't notice.
In this light, I considered my own earlier post potentially confusing, a "brain fart" if you will.
Constructive criticism and pointing out flaws in my posts are always welcome.

Hey Gigavps, that's PRECISELY what worries me about projects such as Goat's.
"We'll give you 1xx%!" looks good on paper but that money HAS to come from somewhere and Goat wasn't Santa Claus last time I checked.
The official explanation is that the hash power is being rented, which of course cuts the further debate as everything else is considered a "trade secret".
I wouldn't touch such a scheme with a ten feet pole.

Mint, any comment?

Precisely why I hooked a rig with this pool.
I'm doing an extended revenue comparison of BitMinter and p2pool, I'll share my findings in a month or two.
My days of mining at Eligius are officially over. A bloody shame for it's an awesome SMPPS poisoned apple pool and I'm still in love with the pure-address TNO approach.

EDIT:: there also appears to have been some morally dubious activity going on at ABCPool concerning Goat's project. Ceased due to technical issues more than anything else.
I call that highly disconcerting.
Don't let greed cloud your judgment, pool ops  

Never said they were useless.
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware what the current situation is.

No more PC P&C-style cooling⁽¹⁾, just the standard 120/135mm fans.
Worse still, the latest line of PC Power & Cooling Silencer Mk III PSUs is using a dated group-regulated design.
That's something I just don't like to see, how a hitherto well-respected brand is being used.

Notes:
(1) PC P&C used to employ smaller exhaust fans pulling air along the radiators and over the PCB. The standard approach nowadays is blowing air on the radiator tops.

Brain-fart fixed. Thanks. Dunno what I was thinking 

Bitcent (or bit-cent): 0.010 BTC
Broken Bitcent: 0.005 BTC (half of the normal bitcent).
Spamming images does you no credit here.

Yes, that firewall precludes an attacker from killing your old XP with a single packet. Bravo!

Just don't expect it to save your butt should you ever navigate to an exploit-enhanced webpage... Headshot!
Seriously, be the boy-scout and do your updates twice a year, k? That will stop a whole myriad of malware using old vulnerabilities dead in their tracks.

The bad news is, old (patched) vulnerability exploits are ridiculously cheap, selling a dime a dozen, if not being freely accessible by any malware author.
They are still being included just for such users as you.

I really hope you're not using that unpatched XP machine for anything other than gaming. If you do, god help you.
...and don't keep a broken Bitcent in the wallet there.

Mess around with the vector width (1, 2, or 4) and worksize (64,128, or 256).
Make sure intensity is set to 9 and thread count per GPU at 2.

All miners use basically the same kernels for GPU calculations, you should not lose 20 MHash/s out of the blue.

Nice job tunneling cgminer out of the hostile zone.

The share/min counter is heavily influenced by current difficulty. Don't give it more attention than it deserves.
It will fluctuate to some degree based on your recent luck.


Why? It's not the clock speed itself that kills cards, it's heat and strain.
Strain will be constant while heat is based on core voltage to a large degree⁽¹⁾. If you can undervolt that card a bit feel free to push it as high as it will go.
One of my cards is mining at 1005 MHz with the voltage dropped from stock 1.1V to 1.010V. Not too shabby.

Notes:
(1) Energy consumption of a GPU (hence the amount of heat) changes proportionally to the core voltage squared.

16,6 cents

And what facts are you basing your suspicions on, pray tell?
Are you aware that the Rosewill Lightning 1300W is internally the same psu as the Superflower Golden Green?
Are you aware that both are excellent platforms?
You're basing your suspicions on your ignorance of the subject matter, aren't you?

Do you happen to know that neither Rosewill, nor XFX, nor SilverStone, nor Mushkin, nor Corsair nor OCZ don't actually make PSUs? Putting their stickers on ready-made devices is all they do.
Thus, the quality of their PSUs depends solely on which manufacturer they sign an OEM contract with and what designs they choose to purchase.
Forget PC Power & Cooling, they have been reduced to just another brand name owned by OCZ - and not a top shelf brand at that.

A general statement like "OCZ is good enough" (at most you could say "This one here OCZ power supply, based on ASD PSU platform and manufactured by QWE" is good enough) is inherently flawed.

Unless it REALLY needs that reboot following an update
Just fooling around, sorry.

Make sure you're using bitcoin-qt 5.2. The download speed has been significantly improved.
If the issue is caused by dead slow internet connection or a massively underpowered machine (netbook), you'll likely be better off with a thin client.

Lovely, if I ever need to take over the world I'll simply grab the source code of any existing miner, mod is to falsely show higher hash rate, and - naturally - trojan the hell out of it.
Booby trap, take cover!

Anyone downloading untrusted executable code found on the net (especially through some anonymous forums) must surely be a brain-dead idiot.

Let straight this misconception out:
There is no "vote" in the sense of a democratic vote with the miners telling the devs which way to go. It's the same definition of vote as anything being done by the block chain: any change with >50% support gets accepted and merged into the main block chain.
Everyone is expected to go with BIP16 since that code has been compiled into the most recent bitcoind.
The "vote" means just that the devs are waiting to check whether or not over 50% of the total hash power has been upgraded with BIP16 support and therefore BIP16 is alive or do they need to wait longer.

Tycho will decide what happens anyway, thanks to the brain-dead sheep crowding at his pool. That's the price ultimately paid for the centralization that pools bring.
If anyone wants to sanitize the situation and they happen to have a friend mining for a giant pool, please whack them across the head until they change to a small pool, perhaps even this one.
P2pool would be even better as it allows (and requires) each miner to run his own bitcoind.

Luke raised one hell of a row and seriously undermined the trust in the dev team with his irresponsible actions:
2 questions about this P2SH thing
How to vote for/against p2sh?
Miners don't even know they can vote on P2SH

Silverstone RV02 and RV03 "Raven" to be precise.
Both models rock; I'm very happy with my RV02's performance as Con is with his RV03's. RV03 is smaller and comes with one fan less but is also a tad cheaper.
You can jury-rig fans aplenty to either of those cases with a few zip ties and some duct tape.
Try NewEgg

There ye go P4:
BIP12 (op_eval), BIP16 (op_p2sh) and  BIP17 (op_chv) are different implementations serving the same purpose of introducing multi-signature transactions at protocol level. To the end-user there's no real difference between them. BIP12 is now dead due to a fatal flaw having been discovered so the choice is between BIP16 and BIP17.
According to Maged, even most of the devs don't care which one eventually gets implemented.

With BIP16, transactions initiated by you look like normal transactions to the network while transactions sent to you require additional work, thus will be a tad slower until everyone upgrades their bitcoind to support them and more expensive (slightly higher fees). BIP17 does things the other way around.

Old clients won't confirm BIP16 transactions but will confirm BIP17 transactions and treat them as valid even though they don't actually parse them correctly.

BIP12 was being worked on since October. In December, a flaw was found making the transaction language (Script) turing-complete thus making it impossible to be statically analyzed. Some of the BIP12 code was recycled into BIP16. Lately, Luke fervently advocated his implementaion, now specified as BIP17 as being more elegant. Not "far superior", mind you, just "more elegant".

Whichever option eventually wins, I have full confidence in the devs having done the due diligence and scrutinized the code for flaws as best they can.

I suggest you don't believe the recently popular n00btalk deprecating the BIPs as rushed, unverified code being shoved down the miners' throats.

DISCLAIMER: This post has been written according to my best knowledge. I can't guarantee, however, that it is absolutely correct.

OK, now this is a true story:
I'm dead serious guys, look here if you don't believe me  
Don't laugh at the user, laugh at how perfectly inadequate Windows is for mining in its default configuration.

that's how I read the poll:
* Obviously untrue but a bit of Windows-bashing is always in order.

I only take my miners offline when I have some maintenance to do.

My bad. Fixed.