I can answer that:

"Free tournament" means it's a tournament that is free to enter.

There's no entry fee.

The players don't have to deposit any of their own money at all.

Membership is free.

The winner of the hourly freeroll gets 50 chips; each chip is 1/1000th of a bitcoin; the minimum withdrawal is 100 chips, so you have to win twice before you can withdraw (or you could deposit enough to put your balance up to 100 chips, then withdraw).

The only condition is that you can't withdraw less than 100 chips at a time.  There's no requirement to play a certain amount of "real money" games before you can withdraw.

I think this qualifies as a way of getting bitcoins for free.

Then again if one of those early mining rewards ever gets moved/consolidated then we will know for sure.

No thanks i will not celebrate 25 coins per block 

The more I think about local currencies the more obvious it becomes that their promoters like Lietaer are entangled in a fallacy: they end up opposing local circulation to liquidity.
Local circulation is supposed to favour local commerce so they become concerned with monetary leaks.
In fact, monetary leaks are simply the consequence of liquidity which is a desirable property of a currency.

The only defect of the monetary sytem that a local currency can correct is in money creation : local bottom-up money creation can correct the imbalance of the top-down money creation by the banks.

In other words, a successfull local currency is one that is created locally in volume but can flow gradually outside of the community.
That's why bitcoin fits in the big picture and why so many local currencies today are only marginally effective because of low volumes and/or no liquidity.

I think a perfect world would have to be 100% post-scarcity, so we wouldn't need any medium of exchange. People would just share and help each other out of kindness.

Why do you say classes are unnatural? Other primates have "classes" (social hierarchy) too, albeit less extreme than human classes.

If you were to pay off all of the debt in the world, there would be no fiat cash, period. Every dollar that is printed (digital or otherwise) is owned as collateral by the shareholders of the central bank that print it, plus interest.

The money is given value by legal tender laws; ergo, people have to accept it for all debts. To add salt to the wound, you don't even own the money you hold. It can be garnished and deleted by inflation. It's only of value to you by the contractual license of force: If you incur a debt, you can force the currency down your debtor's throat with a policeman by your side.

With Bitcoin, it only has value on a voluntary-basis. People will not take it because they have to but because they want to and choose to do so. To me, that's the most valuable thing about Bitcoin as a digital currency and why it's growth will be exponential: It's growth will come from the will of the people and not coercion.

Ok, in the example you gave, you're saying around 10%. Each block yields 50BTC, equiv $250 USD, at 10%, that would be $25 USD, or 5 BTC. 5BTC/80tx = .0625BTC = $0.31 per tx. Still pretty high for a tx, especially if it's for small amounts.

If $0.31 causes there to be less than 80tx per block on average, that means even higher fees will be required to maintain 10%, which is a further disincentive to making tx. Until the number of coins generated drops significantly, and until the number of average tx increases significantly, this is still not enough of a disincentive for the botnets to stop mining empty blocks, nor is the incentive high enough for them to take on the whole 2GB blockchain on every one of their nodes.

While this isn't a huge problem right now, if nothing is done to deny their entry into the network, it could eventually become a 51% attack, or could be used as a stepping stone for one. Artificially beefing up the miner's pocketbooks would be a far more expensive and less effective solution than simply changing the code to exclude freeloaders. Depending on how much BTC appreciates, the opportunity cost of freeloading might continue to be justified even after 2017. It also depends on the cost of running dummy miners vs miners w/ full blockchain. If the savings is significant enough (apparently it is for the moment), then direct disincentive will be required to prevent them from competing with legit miners or else the performance and the security of BTC will continue to be compromised.

simply changing the code to exclude freeloaders

This offer will be available until March 20 @ midnight UTC

yesterday i bought 0.80 bitcoin. Now i can't buy them anymore. What's happening?

get the girl a little card with a QR code on it, and her picture.  And something where the money goes straight to her bank account.

like this

https://pimpcoin.com

For research purposes only, I'll need a link to understand what you're talking about. But perhaps we'll both need to send her a PM about receiving Bitcoin.

Interesting, you get 0.01BTC to play with. My account balance is 0.01BTC but my accound address has nothing in it according to blockchain.info

Gah, I keep forgetting that "web wallets" exist.  I've never used one because I never understood why I'd have another service hold my money when the regular Bitcoin client seemed simple enough to use...? 

So, the concept still works but only if the agreement starts out that way.  It could be a prerequisite that, in order to use a certain online gambling site, that you must fund the account yourself and be able to sign messages with that original address.  Or, there's an option when you start an account "I will create a login & password / I will use the first funding address as my identity."