Sure, I agree you shouldn't remove any info!
Maybe just find some CSS tricks to avoid the collisions (like allowing a line break in the data/time filed). Also, you could:
- replace "hours" with "h" "minutes" with "m" and "seconds" with "s" in round duration
- remove the 2 last digits from round reward (they seem to always be zeros)
- remove "0 confirms" when a block is marked as orphaned
I think just those would be enough to make it look good on my narrow left screen (yeah, I keep my browsers on my worst screen, I save the 21.5" 1080p for development ).

Ok, I guess that more than makes it up for the bad karma you got from blowing that other coin a few days ago. 

Yup, that's pretty much the issue here. Attacking a chain, okay that's not nice but we're getting used to that. But hijacking other people's resources (misusing their trust) to do so, that's ****ing ***. I hope his rotten pool gets as deserted as it deserves.

Wow, I had a feeling that Eligius sucked, now I know my intuition was tons more right than I could ever expect!

Same impressive increase for me: with the version published around December 20 I got like 3.6-3.8kh/s, now I'm at 5.0-5.1kh/s, on a P2X4 955 @ 3.6GHz (all that being per thread, of course). Going to try that on my Linux C2D E6550 ASAP...

Edit: no improvement for the C2DE6550. Well, this restored the AMD/Intel balance then 

Nah, not really for me.

Work networks tend to block funky ports. Try setting up some SSH tunnel over port 443 (but don't blame me if your IT police comes to spank you ).

Works for me ATM.

I think a few days ago they were. At least this way we're not at risk of someone hacking our earnings

Indeed, I have like 2% reject and my node keeps falling back to Deepbit quite regularly (in my Deepbit stats I've got shares in like half the blocks). Looks like there's been a downtime a couple hours ago, too. But, well, as long as you've got a backup pool, 2% of rejected shares isn't too much of an issue since we get 110% of what's left.

Indeed, I understand it can be troublesome later, but at least it prevents BTC from being headless like NMC...

Btw, I bet you are developing on some big-ass screen and never really checked how it looked on some more mainstream resolution:

Yeah there is one. It's pretty minimalistic, but there's shares, rejected shares, account balance, a button to request payment and a form to change your password.

Same here with AVG and cgminer 2.0.6... Looks like the antivirus guys drank too much on Xmas.

Just had the same issue after restarting my miner: one of the GPU would barely mine, the other would mine around 250 MHs vs the usual 380. Turned out the auto-intensity was screwing up, forcing it manually to 8 fixed the drop (and even increased hashrate above what I was used to). PC feels a bit laggy though now  

Going to try 2.1.0...

PM sent, let's try this. I'd be glad if it managed to make deepbit a bit below 50%.

Standard electrical heater: in the 1000W
Standard CPU: in the 60-120W
=> 10 servers = about 1 standard electrical  heater
So yeah, 40 servers (I think that's one of the figures from the article) is definitely a possibility to heat a small house in a temperate climate. Might be a bit noisy though.

Or maybe it's just that for some reason the botnet switched to FBX
http://allchains.info/

Depends how much you value your privacy. I don't know about Ubuntu One, but Dropbox technically has access to all the files you upload to them, while Wuala encrypts them on your PC so they can't read what you store on their servers. And you can't pay for storage with BTC @ Dropbox It's a bit hard to find though, so here it is: http://wuala.com/en/bitcoin

You know what, let's do this merged mining thing and see what happens... Who knows, maybe we'll even become rich 

Precisely, supply and demand. In the case of merged mining we are supplying people with coins that they don't want. What will they do? Either exchange them all against coins they do want ("100-0" case), or if that new "unwanted" coin isn't too bad they might just adopt it and balance the demand they'd have only over one coin between the two of them (50-50 case).

Indeed I think I've been a bit inaccurate: a more accurate statement is that the global value people get from mining both coins during the same time remains the same. Still that doesn't change the part about:
- the same as before, if coin A and coin B had the same value/diff ratio at the beginning,
- or lower for someone who was mining the coin with the best value/diff ratio
- or higher for someone who was mining the lowest value/diff ratio
I have to admit this is giving me a headache now, maybe because it's getting late there ^^ Anyway, as I said, I don't care that much about LTC and I can't prevent someone from implementing merged mining, in which case it would be more profitable to merged mine than not to do it (which is why merged mining can't really fail to be a success in terms of adoption).