I wouldn't mine too much, as I recently wanted to pay something rather small in Bitcoin and was discouraged by the insane fees and I really think something must be done about this, or some altcoin will take over at some point.
But an advance notice would be nice: I have some bitcoins in trading platforms, and I'd prefer them to be in my wallet if and when a split happens...

Are we sure it won't happen earlier though?
Here I read "Activate the New York Consensus SegWit2 by July 31", does it mean the fork will happen on July 31 or that it can happen way earlier, considering SegWit2 already has 75% of blocks in the last 24h?

I've actually just received a return moments ago

Anyone else has bitcoins on loan there that still haven't been returned although they should have? (talking about a few hours late, so far)

Ah, silly me it's in the manual indeed:
https://www.bitmaintech.com/files/download/AntMiner%20S9%20Installation%20Guide.pdf

However they only indicate 550MHz / 600MHz / 650MHz. Are those the only options or could I enter, say, 333 MHz ?

Is it possible to modify the clock frequency of the S9? (I'd be interested in underclocking it)

I just upgraded I had the same issue with an accidental double-spend I made a while back. Somehow the client created the transaction I wanted to do twice, one went through and the other was marked as "error" in my transaction list... until this update which marked it as pending. Rescanning did the trick for me too.

I don't think it's necessary to go this far. Some more details in the step-by-step instructions, so that they work without assuming the user's setup is 100% default would be enough.
For instance, the instructions on http://p2pool.in/ might work for a user with a default setup (data folder for Bitcoin Core not modified) and who doesn't care about not knowing where the mined BTCs will arrive, but it's not enough for a user who moved around their data folder or wants to specify at the pool level the address where to receive BTCs. Also, it's not the case for me but maybe instructions to use a custom port (+/-IP) for Bitcoin RPC would be useful too.

Thanks, the logs looked better this way (tries to connect with the proper rpcuser, at least)... but still failed.
I ended up running
which finally worked

I think the reason so few people use it is because, years after the first release, it's still so complicated to set up.
I did configure Bitcoin Core to run that RPC server, here's bitcoin.conf:
Then tried to run run_p2pool.exe, but could find no option to configure the rpcuser there. And of course it failed.

In the log I noticed:
So I went back and set rpcuser='' in bitcoin.conf
And I ran p2pool again this way:
And still it didn't work. So I went back to a normal pool, because I have other things to do today.........

Thanks, I got it now. I got confused because your interface at coinarchy.com doesn't allow copy/pasting the signed text without clicking some buttons first. 
I hope many people vote: even if the decision isn't necessarily decided straight from the poll, that would at least help to have an overview of what the community prefers.

In my experience, whenever you give away space and resources, they end up being fully consumed pretty fast even if things used to work with a small fraction of said space and resources before. Bitcoin works nice even with the current limit: I can still send fee-less transactions and they get processed usually in a few hours. Increasing to 2MB should be good enough for a while. I fear giving 8MB straight away would encourage people to just use up all that space immediately. A good rhythm could be to increase to 2MB, then when it seems not enough again, increase by 1 more MB, etc, etc. And hopefully before it gets totally out of hand we'll have a better way to handle the blockchain than trying to fit 5TB into the users' SSDs....

Don't know if it's because I'm particularly clueless, but where should that signed message be posted? I see there are already some results so there must be a way, only it seems well hidden....

No I think the problem is much more serious: I've been racing against the payout threshold since I registered (first no minimum, then I believe 0.00005000, then 0.001, now 0.01). I assume whenever I'll get close enough to 0.01 it will raise again. Feels like free users never get to catch the carrot while this lasts...

Seriously? 0.0001 BTC? Bloody dust....
On a side note, AGES ago (like, before the launch of v2), I suggested that all payouts to a same address (for people with several units with the same address) be merged. Well, this still doesn't exist, and after 3 months without payment I just received 3 payouts at the same time, one ~0.01 BTC and 2 others ~0.0001 BTC. Why not merge those instead of spamming our wallets? (yes, 3 transactions in 3 months isn't exactly spam, however, while 3 transactions of ~0.004 BTC each at one per month would be acceptable because we get funds security in exchange for the increased amount of smaller transactions, nothing for 3 months then suddenly 3 transactions at the same time isn't)

For me the ideal system would be like:
- merge all payouts to the same address (seriously... you can program geotargetting and quite advanced, great campaign options, but not a trivial payout aggregation?)
- minimum payout 0.01 BTC or once per month if >= 0.001 (+/- option to set this to once a week if >=0.0001 because some impatient idiots seem to be ready to pay 50% tx fees to spend their earnings - 0.0001 BTC is worth like 6 cents, FFS)
- no more than one payout per 24h except if >0.10 BTC

Oh. I quite agree about those outrageous delays (5 days for my latest deposit, hurray...). Plus the weird fees (I deposited several times the same amount, from the same bank, fees were never the same...... once there was even no fee at all). With performances like this I'm not sure they deserve the whopping 0.6% fee on all trades...

Yes and no. I think I trust MtGox more than their bank. Sure, they are (very) late in processing the payments, but I feel like the main liability is in their bank more than in them. That's quite subjective though, but they're the market leader and they practice fairly profitable fees, so I don't think it would be their interest to go rogue while business is already working so well. Their bank, on the other hand, is an easy target for the authorities who would like to "regulate" Bitcoin.

That's already much too long, if you ask me. Sent a deposit recently to both MtGox and Bitstamp at the same time. Bitstamp was credited within 36 hours. Gox is still waiting, that's 4 days now... Maybe they give higher priority to larger transactions...

Well, compare the value with what it was a month before and let's see where the crash is. Maybe it crashed for day-traders, but for people who use BTC in the long run, it didn't.

This one is more damaging I think. Mtgox taking the market hostage, not cool.

I guess there's also http://bitcoin-otc.com/ , although I'm not really a big fan: many people here ask the mtgox price + some percentage for some reason, while IMO it should at worst be the same price, since it has no fees... Once there was even a guy who was like begging to sell about $15 worth of BTC, and when getting into the details he asked for a fee (additional to the PayPal fee). WTF, he's the asking party yet he wants to make profit. That's how ****ed up BTC-OTC seems to me. Haven't been there in a long while though. I still like how OpenPGP-ish it is, though.