Is the Nikon D3100 an upgrade from the D3000?

I've had my D3000 for a year now, and I have Best Buy's 4 year accidental coverage on it. Considering the coverage, and that it is still in great shape, I could probably sell it for nearly the price of a new D3000, and pay just a little more to get a D3100. Big differences between the two cameras are: 14.2M vs 10.2M (prob doesn't even matter at this point), CMOS vs CCD, 1080p video vs no video, and LiveView vs no LiveView. Is it a worthy upgrade?

It's a significant upgrade in terms of low light capability and video (the best video of all entry level cameras on the market vs no video at all), but other than that it doesn't really offer many features that weren't already present on the D3000; i think it even lost some (infrared remote support).

If you look for a real upgrade, get a D90.

Keep in mind that even if you get almost the full price for the used camera due to the coverage, you will lose the coverage for your new camera then. You'd have to purchase the coverage anew for your D3100, thus adding to its effective price.

If you think it is worth it
go for it

Yes.much better features.

What a d3100 gets you is more useable high iso and video. If you find yourself wanting any of those then yes it's an interesting upgrade.

If, however, you're ready to take your hobby to the next level and you don't care much about video then a D90 would be a far more interesting option