I believe William Gibson is banned from returning...

Why not have the wallet on one machine, using either "bitcoin -server" or "bitcoind", and use separate miners on the other machines (i.e. don't run bitcoin[d] at all on the other machines). Or have I misunderstood, and you need access to the wallet from multiple machines?

MtGox will do BTC -> Liberty Reserve (USD).

In fact, if you check at bitcoincharts.com there are a number of exchanges that will do Liberty Reserve and Pecunix. (I only have experience with MtGox).

What OS are these machines running on?

If it's *nix, one solution might be to install munin-node on all the miners, then cobble together a quick munin plug-in that "stacked" the hash rates together, like the (entropy) example here.

If it's Windows, munin might still be an option... but I've never tried it.

Edit: forgot to say: munin would give you semi-real-time data. The finest grained data is every five minutes, but it uses a round-robin database to store data up to 12 months. You end up with nice graphs for today, this week, this month and this year. And, as a bonus, you could even configure it to email you if one of the miners goes down.

When I've been thinking of hierarchies, I've been assuming something like the Wikipedia definition, i.e. there are "top-down" relationships. I think I'm getting it now - when anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists talk of hierarchies they're discussing what I think of as basic networks - undirected graphs as opposed to directed graphs?

69-71 degrees should be fine - mine normally sits in the high 70s (according to aticonfig).

I'll try and keep an eye on my hash rate, and see if I notice the same kind of variation.

* cough! * Fake name!
* cough! * Only use the bitcoin address once!

The Man is now up against plausible deniability - "no, Joe Bloggs doesn't live here. Perhaps they lived here before me? No, I've never heard of "LEGIT_DVD" or this "coinbit" thing. Your search warrant says 'Joe Bloggs'? Well come back with a proper warrant with my name on it and then you can legally execute a search. I'll be happy to let you examine my PC's hard drive if you have a legal search warrant."

Even in a post-widespread-bitcoin-acceptance world you just need to make sure that you use multiple wallets, and the bitcoin wallet The Man catches you with isn't connected to LEGIT_DVD.

Incidentally, would The Man even be able to get a search warrant for a LEGIT_DVD purchase? Maybe in some jurisdictions, but in mine the judge signing the warrant would have to be asleep or incompetent (both possible, I'll admit...)

There are arbitrage opportunities, but they arise mostly where one currency is lightly traded - creating a risk that before you manage to close out the position the rate has moved against you.

I'm firmly of the belief that arbitrage (or the potential for arbitrage) is what makes currency pairs in different markets converge. So the BTC-USD price at MtGox and the BTC-EUR price at BTCex will inevitably reflect the global USD-EUR price. There may be small windows where this isn't the case, but arbitrageurs will exploit that, causing the window to close.

What miner are you using? The one I use (Diablo-miner) shows two speeds - current and average. Average for me (5870, both clocks at 900) is around 343000 and changes very little, but the current speed does vary enormously. I'll swear I've seen it hit 700000 (and smarter people than me will tell us that that's unpossible... and I suspect they're correct).

At the end of day, average is the only thing that really matters. Even if you miner does briefly go up high, you'll only get a momentary benefit from it. Average tells you far more.

I suppose then BTCex.com could be used as a payment mechanism - "click here to buy this using your bitcoins stored at BTCex.com".

I can see it being useful, but it would be good if it were opt-in only. I quite like the idea that any bitcoin withdrawal at an exchange can only go to the one bitcoin address - it adds to the security.

No, I don't think that's what Richochet said, and I think Ricochet's explanation (and your previous understanding) is correct.

Payment - the 50 BTC and any transaction fees - only goes to the miner who solves the difficult problem.

If you continue mining you might generate a block (solve a difficult problem). If you do, you'll receive 50 BTC. You may also receive a transaction fee. You won't receive any transaction fees unless you generate a block.

You will only generate a block if you are online and mining.

OK, to recap:

sortedmush argued it makes more sense for left-anarchists to call themselves "anhierarchists" (presumably denoting left-anarchists' opposition to hierarchy), but then argues that hierarchical structures emerge as left-anarchist organise, the debate serving to highlight (as sortedmush sees it) an inconsistency among left-anarchists.

sortedmush's analysis is fair enough - there may well be inconsistencies. I don't personally see it like that, as I don't regard the temporary election of a recallable chair to be the imposition of a ruler, but it's a reasonable argument all the same.

What I don't get is: what is the difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? sortedmush highlights an inconsistency, rather than demonstrating that left-anarchists are opposed to hierarchies (indeed, sortedmush suggests that left anarchists embrace hierarchy to a certain extent). Does any one genuinely believe that anarchists can be split into those who are opposed to rulers and those who are opposed to hierarchies? For that matter, does any one see a difference between opposition to rulers and opposition to hierarchies? Or is it more nuanced than that, an opposition to rulers accompanied (or not) by an opposition to all other forms of hierarchy?

Genuine question: this isn't something I've studied for nearly 25 years, but I found it fascinating when I did. I was lucky enough to study political science at a college where the lecturers bucked the then-trend for "compulsory" membership of the British Communist Party, and I was luckier still to have lecturers who were interested not just in anarchism but anarcho-capitalism. So I'm curious to see what people involved now believe.

Not exactly. The miner will confirm the transaction and receive the transaction fee at the same time. The miner has to be online in order to mine. A miner that is offline won't be mining, and won't receive the transaction fee.

The miner receives the transaction fee. The miner will be online: they need to be online in order to mine.

Incidentally, for receiving bitcoins in general it doesn't matter whether you're on- or off-line. You still receive the bitcoins you were sent. The network "knows" that you now have the coins. It's a bit like checking your account balance at an ATM - you still have the money in your account, even when you aren't at the ATM, and you can still receive money in your account, even when you aren't at the ATM.

It's inevitable. If this wasn't the case then arbitrage would quickly occur, and it would become the case.

Let's say in real life USD 2 buys you EUR 1. Now let's say that at MtGox BTC 1 buys USD 3 and EUR 1. People would simply spend BTC 2 to buy USD 6, then move their USD to a non-bitcoin forex exchange and use the USD 6 to buy EUR 2. The result would be that BTC would fall against USD at MtGox, until it no was longer profitable to engage in arbitrage.

Next year we'll try and give you advance notice of April 1st :-)

(Assuming that they don't move April 1st... again...)

I have now received 20 BTC from JackRabiit, and the loan is repaid in full, including interest!

Very happy with how things turned out: JackRabiit repaid consistently and quickly, greatly surpassing my expectations.

I've rated JackRabiit "+1" here.

+1 for JackRabiit

Full details here :-)

OK, good answer, but an "an-hierarchist" would want no hierarchies :-) The "hierarchies" I've seen emerge in collectivist anarchist settings tend to be voluntary and temporary (the temporary acceptance of someone to chair a meeting, for the duration of that meeting) and didn't suggest any power beyond that necessary - the chair of a meeting had to wait their place in turn to speak on a proposal, for example.

The bomb-throwing comment was addressed to error, but possibly deserves some clarity around it: I've also seen my fair share recently and as far back as the Miners' Strike in the UK, so while I'm aware of the huge amount of negative publicity some anarchist have had generated around them, I'm also sceptical when I hear claims of violence against living creatures. I'm well aware that some anarchists support property destruction, which doesn't fit with my more pacifist beliefs, but I'm very sceptical of the media presentation of anarchists as violent thugs attacking poor, un-armoured, defenceless state employees.

Why? Do you feel that it's possible to reject rulers but accept hierarchies? Do you have any particular hierarchies in mind that you consider tolerable, or is your concern with the collectivist anarchists' focus on hierarchies?

Regarding the bomb-throwing quip, error, that's seems to be a sweeping generalisation and I'd want to see some sort of evidence to support comments like that. With respect, it seems more rooted in late-19th century history and the caricature of the bomb-throwing, cape-wearing anarchist than any 20th or 21st century reality.