I'm in two minds here. On one hand I'd like to see capacity grow, but I know that we desperately need new funds in order for that to happen. New funds needs renewed confidence from investors confidence. I think we're just generating BTC too slowly right now to grow simply by putting all mined BTC into new rigs. Raising investor confidence probably means a dividend payout more than it means adding more MHash/s.

So I propose a middle ground: For now mined BTC (after expenses like electricity) should be divided into thirds: dividends, share payback and new rigs. Review the decision in a week.

I want to get as many rigs as possible - and I see the way to do that as attracting new investor funds.

Yeah it's like forecasting rain... keep on saying it long enough and even in the Sahara you'll eventually be correct. As the saying goes - even a broken clock is right twice a day.

All your VM would store is a userID reference that authenticates you to a folio of shares and a balance that is on the GLBSE servers. Nope, double selling will not work.

Maybe look at the Freenet Wiki project?

Amen. The Unis I've been associated with have no problem with their resources being used for outcomes that support course work and/or legitimate research projects. They have all had computer use policies that prohibit commercial activity on them - this is in part because they must software sellers some assure that the software they're getting at cheaper rates will only be used in education.
Doing this - if caught - is a pretty open and shut disciplinary case.

Actually it's not an hour a day - it depends if you're on the 3% or 10% fee plans. This isn't a pay-to-mine scheme either because by definition a "pay-to-x" scheme means upfront payment, not a percentage of earnings.

Using filharvey's logic the price of shares could drop lower than 0.75... hmmm I'm not so sure. I'm with nefario on this - show some progress by paying out a dividend. That'll get people interested again.

That is confusing. Is there a way to consolidate bundles of coins to avoid the project with too many tiny bundles of coins?

Look at freenet. I believe it already offers the features you're looking for and more.

Why not get an existing country whose currency has collapsed to change to BTC as the national currency. They could use bitbills for cash and might likely do it for a few free billion USD worth of BTC.

I have a sapphire HD6990. It runs at around 84 degrees in ambient temperatures of around 20 degrees.

Gaddafi sir, I will forward your BTC if you can confirm by posting a picture of Kim Jong Il looking at your stash of bitcoins.

There are exchanges around doing get/put options that'll accomplish the same if you don't mind a little maths.

Lol what would we talk about.... can't be like to pho-rums!

OP: +1

I here for the low transaction fees and the ability to conduct business internationally without stupid currency conversion costs etc. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. I don't like my savings losing value by governments increasing the money supply. And I'm here for the lols.

So somebody could place fake orders to simulate demand/supply? Hmmm not cool. Leaves the market open to manipulation.

It's called the Martingale system. Most casinoes won't kick you out for using a pure Martingale since because they'll win so much from you. Basically every table game has a limit, usually about 20x the minimum bet. This means that after 4 losing bets in a row you can no longer double the bet and the Martingale no longer works.
Mathematically pure 50/50 Martingale is about who has the deepest pockets. Table limits artificially limit the depth of the punter's pocket. Oh, and no casino game is 50/50 - though blackjack is close at around 48.5%

I might be interested. I have a business trip the coupla days beforehand so would need permission from the boss, but yep.

Yep, waaay before Bitcoin hits $1.00 USD I'll be buying them up. Notwithstanding the investment value to myself, there are humanitarian reasons for keeping value in BTC.