Unfortunately I think it still is a lenders vs traders problem.  I hate to sound combative, but BFX halted trades to protect lenders and I understand fully why, but had BFX followed stamp instead of halting any and all trades till recovery I would have made a significant amount from my short position even before you take into consideration the flash crash.  

I appreciate BFX's commitment to finding a middle ground but to a trader this is kind of like blasphemy.  Speaking as someone who has been trading a few years now you have to understand trading is a game of strategy, moves and counter-moves.  A trader may take on a strategy that can incur 10 minor/moderate losses in a row in an expectation that if they stick to the same strategy they will score one big win on the 11th trade.  This is kind of a simplified explanation but you have to understand.  For many of us the crash down to 530 (following stamp and other exchanges) wasn't a gamble, it was an expectation--part of a longterm strategy.  Those who aren't spreadbetting or scalping, which would be a majority b/c btc is a rough environment for short interval strategies, trade in expectation of a major swing.  The last two weeks have been full of false signals and sideways markets that most of us have been sucking up losses from and sticking to a swing strategy in expectation we would see a major and profitable swing.

To save the lenders BFX chose to halt trades and wait for a reversal to prices above where the halt began, this utterly crippled a number of traders I'm sure.  

It shouldn't be a matter of 'traders vs lenders' but unfortunately in protecting the interests of one group you harmed another.  Again I understand why, but this is something worth taking the time to consider when you make these decisions.

EDIT

To append my further post in the future BFX as a matter of policy should always resume trading after a flashcrash below the price at which it was halted

I.E. If you intended to halt trading at 600 trading should be resumed below 600 the inverse is also true for a short squeeze

The pool operators should allow miners to provide the pool with an ip address where the pool can dial the miner to establish a connection...with a bit of software running on the miner's machine, it would allow the pool to initiate outbound connections to the members of the pool and operate though a bank of ip addresses that shield the pool from these DDOS attacks.

If the pools don't do something like this, then people will start resorting to setting up their own smaller, private pools if these DDOSes continue.

It has 67 confirmations, btw for bitcoin I get a string for an address, for GG coin, how do I find what address am I using for my account?

I haven't been able to find it anywhere, but I've read that recent changes have been made to auto-donate to bithopper.  And thats fine.

But I cant be able to find any documentation on the % auto-donated .  I'm only rockin 225mhs (~190 shares an hour), so I'd just like to know how much I can expect to be out.

Thanks for an awesome program.

edit: My apologies if its somewhere really obvious, I'm really bad at overlooking things.

edit2: Well that makes sense.  I'm still using an old source... 2.4+ don't work for me. Running windows 7, got all the new dependencies, just since the updates I've had to go back to an older version.

So wait, are you guys saying that bitcoinpool didn't just solve like 5 blocks today?  Because its showing up on my unconfirmed rewards . . . .