I can not resist to start a discussion:
The fundamental difference between DC and mining is that DC is volunteer work for the good of science and society and mining is work for the good of an individual. Let me go into more detail:
Computationally there may not be such a great difference; but there is a difference in culture, philosophy and outlook.
In DC the work unit is one part of a large computational problem which otherwise would need a supercomputer to solve. The result of the work unit (WU) has no value for the person calculating the WU, but has value for the person(s) sending the work unit. The return of the result of the work unit is essential for the total result of the project. If the WUs are not returned to the sender, they are of no value to the sender and of only negative value (=loss) to the cruncher, because the cruncher can’t even count on getting respect or credit or any scientific acknowledgment (as is often done, when DC-projects are published - see another thread in this forum).
In mining there is no result to be returned to the sender; the only value generated is to the person mining the coins. The computational effort does not contribute to the sender's bottom line at all, only to the miner's.
All DC-projects could probably be solved using a sufficiently powerful computer, but in DC the cost of the computing is distributed to many crunchers. That is why distributed computing is often called "citizen science participation". This is the other part of "distributed computing" - not only by distributing WUs but also by
distributing
costs (also DC). The cost (in computer hardware, software, power, time) paid by each cruncher is a volunteer effort (that why many projects call crunchers volunteers) contributing (as any volunteer effort) to the positive balance of society.
In mining, theoretically, a very powerful computer could mine hundreds of coins every day. The costs running this powerful computer are paid by the computer owner and need to be calculated into a cost-gain calculation - no distribution of costs. When miners pool resources they do it to be more efficient in mining (which IMHO is very good) for each miner's individual gain, a win-win-situation for the miners, possibly, but not necessarily for the good of society: one could argue, that mining costs society more than it contributes because the mined funds can be spent in both a constructive way but also in a destructive way (i.e. much of the business on SilkRoad) or not spent at all which removes them (at least in the short view) from society.
Science can be funded through private contributions and/or through public funding, i.e. taxes. As far as I understand, public funding (i.e. taxes) has an overhead (administration, taxes etc.) I don't mind that (if it generates work and thus decreases unemployment) but i prefer that my contribution goes directly to the science performed. It has been shown over and over again, that funding science (no matter how) contributes more to society than it costs society (a win-win situation).
Yes, one could call crunchers for "do gooders" in a derogatory way and call us stupid or what not. That is about as reasonable as calling the volunteers in churches, community projects for "do gooders" too and I do not think, that the society in the US would be better off if 50% of all volunteers just quit and their work would be not performed. Poverty, crime rates, diseases would increase and the total entropy of society would increase tremendously.
So the fundamental difference between DC and mining is that DC is volunteer work and mining is work for the good of an individual.
I don't care if miners discuss their issues in the same forum as the DC-crunchers. As I see it, a separate sub-forum would be more focused and thus constructive because the cultures of the crunchers and miners are quite different.
OTOH, Feel free to do which ever you like. There is of course always the possibility of one learning from the other ...