I have a fork? And here I was fumbling around trying to eat steak with a spoon and a knife. 

Can you get Fallout: New Vegas? Not looking to buy right this instant, but I'd certainly consider your service later on if you can get the goods.

I think transatlantic shipping would make this an expensive deal for me... but I still have to tip my hat and say that you, sir, should be nominated for the Annual Bitcoin Business Award as soon as there is such a prize.  

According to blockexplorer you have recieved coins earlier, so I assume you're not using MyBitcoin to lose them. I suggest running bitcoin with -rescan to see if it fell between the cracks. It has solved the same problem for me and at least to one other person in this thread.

And the stats might be gone because with the payment queue the oldest coins in your balance might have been more than a week old, so it could be that the stat page thinks you've been away for more than a few days since it can't find any coins that are less than a week old. But that's just a guess.

Addresses can be shorter than 34 characters. I believe it's something with the way they are hashed and then encoded as base58 that causes some to become shorter.

Okay, to summarize: I entered 1BTC and got 1.68 back. Shortly after that I entered again with 1.2BTC, which is the first transaction with that amount on blockexplorer.

What happened then is that the money got into the pot, but my address never got on the game table that second time (would most likely have been somewhere at line 6 to 8 ).

It would have been multiplied by now if it had been entered, but since I couldn't know that would when I entered I'm asking for a refund of only the initial amount to be sent back to address 1JVhf8zqxrYiKogeHs5kp57rTgtdDiC3hB. I'm still waiting for that to happen.

Useful enough for a small tip. Maybe you'll get more from others if you do as Luke suggested and also add your address to the page.

It seems to list users that are over the threshold sorted from oldest to most recent... I guess I agree that the list would need to be divided into block/50BTC segments according to up-to-date user balances to be useful.

I just got a new referral from the future:

Created: 2011-07-21 13:21:19
Server time: 2011-07-21 10:50:20

Maybe not a big deal, but it seems like something that should be on the to-do list.

You are aware you are being ripped off as well, aren't you? You're basically doing work for people who are too clever to do their own spamming, and they only give you a part of the affiliate income you generate for them.

I don't have any 69XX cards but 58XX cards throttle the clock rate at 100°C, so I would assume that 10-20% below that emergency threshold would be in a "mostly safe" range.

I would experiment with directing airflow into the intake end of the cards. But keep it gentle, with large fans limited to slow speeds to avoid creating turbulence that works against the flow through the GPU coolers.

Side question: Smoke is good for making airflow visual, and can be seen in some hardware demo videos as well. Does anyone know if there's something like "aerosol smoke" that can be bought for scale experimenting? Cigarettes don't seem to cut it... (but a lighter can work for checking if there is any airflow at all, like with PSU exhausts and such)

I think that the duration of the round I was trying to enter into would be a reasonable time frame for the refund as well.

No, the problem here is that there are two sets of probabilities involved – the normal pool luck, and the risk of a block being invalid. Since all shares have equal chance of meeting the difficulty requirement it means that valid and invalid blocks would, on average, require the same amount of work. The problem then, as I see it, is that invalid blocks don't have a good luck counterpart – as I said, there are no lucky hashes that pay double. So, if a PPS pool has a 1% rate of invalid blocks it means that it will reward its miners 1% more than it earns for the valid blocks.

I see a spike on the reward graph that seems to indicate there was an invalid block in the last long round. It's the first I've noticed on Su, and considering the number of valid blocks since the server was started up I'd say the ratio is quite good.

But, what I'm wondering, is how well paying full PPS for rounds that include invalid blocks will work in the long run. It feels like it, eventually, will push the pool's balance into the red since there are no "extra valid" blocks that pay double to help correct the relation between luck and available funds.

I assume this is something that has been given thought, but it feels like something worth a bit of discussion as well.

I've seen the problem, but wouldn't this solution negatively affect those who have "real" (not self-registered) zero deposit referrals as well?

I think you should refund me out of your own pocket rather than out of the pot, as that would be unfair for future players.

Since it wasn't put in line my deposit became a bonus to other players at my expense, but I think the most honest way to correct the mistake would be with non-pyramid funds. So when I get refunded it would mean that, by extension, you would be the one who entered the 1.2BTC bonus into the pot.

But I won't push this any further now. Maybe someone else has an opinion on what would be most fair?

Still missing a bit here... I first sent 1BTC from that address, I got 1.68 back and then decided to redeposit 1.2 of that - which in turn became the missing transaction. So, I'm out 1.2 coins, which I assume got added to the pot and paid out to others since my address wasn't entered into the pyramid the second time.

I guess a refund of 1.2 sent to original address would be fine, since entering it into the pyramid now would skew the distribution for other players. But no need to rush it.

OK... you were sent 1.2BTC from the address 1JVhf8zqxrYiKogeHs5kp57rTgtdDiC3hB. There is no deposit of 1.2BTC entered into the game. You simply claimed that you missed it and did nothing more about it.

And, for the sake of honesty, I have to admit that I for some reason decided to not mention that it was one of my deposits, entered from one of two different wallets... maybe I was in some sort of devious asshole mood that made me curious to see how you would respond if not directly confronted by someone claiming to own that transaction... and I'm a bit sorry about that.

Are the 1.2 still hard to find, even though the recieved transaction is clearly visible a few lines above the arrow on the screenshot posted earlier?

Well, it was more that it wasn't entered into the table at all, which was being updated at the time I looked in. But I see the error has been acknowledged, and since the address appeared in an outgoing transaction just before I guess it was easy to overlook and an honest mistake...