Technically yes, but for practical purposes the cost of generating them stands in no relation to the effort it took to come up with Bitcoin and write the software.
The general consensus is that Satoshi has "earned" to have them not because his mining but because his work.

All you can say that you think opencoin is too greedy for your taste. In that case you are free to fork ripple once it is released.
As for myself I consider the valuation of XRP to work like a stock which pay "dividends" by deflation. Added to this I didn't give anybody any money nor did I pay for my XRP, which I gonna keep till ripple comes out of beta.
Haters gonna hate,

Just sain' Satoshi also generated a bunch of Bitcoins for himself.

Oh it seems you are their new scapegoat coinseeker. I'm glad I got rid of that role actually,

Aufmerksamkeit ab 266 und wirklich intensiv ab ~500. War beim durchbrechen von 32 auch so...

Rumor has it the first (historical) marathon runner died from dehydration after arrival.

If we are at this capability it is likely we are at the brink of space colonization, so demand would rise proportionally.

Bingo. They are either useless for hashing or just put out the right nonce for any single hash.

Quantum Computers are to Bitcoins as Asteroid mining is to Gold.

The former already exists.
But both are so far from having practical impact that it is irrelevant to consider the implications.

Heh and they told me I'd never catch up with zyk.

Nobody said you should eat them, smoke them or otherwise put them or parts of it into your body by other means. 

ok I guess, you are right they call it open source then. (although open payment network can mean lots of things)

For the rest of the debate:
I suggest you watch this interview with RMS: http://youtu.be/uFMMXRoSxnA

He clearly states that free software is about the ability to control the software, not about re-distribution.
The GPL for instance restricts re-distribution under other licences and using the program in proprietary products, while the MIT Licence does not restrict the use in proprietary products and the public domain licence poses no restrictions. It is entirely possible for a free (or if you like to call it open source) software to be prohibited in re-distribution.
But we don't even know under which conditions the ripple daemon can be distributed do we?

From the point of the biggest disappointment, in terms of lost potential that would be freicoin imo.

Perhaps he will be out of the hospital by then?

From my experience its best to take losses immediately in such a situation. Waiting makes you emotional which usually gets it worse.

This video is still missing from this thread.

bonus points if you click it 3-4 times.

It's free software imo, under the definition RMS uses.
It does give users freedom by distributing the software by source code. That you have to adhere to certain conditions to become a user doesn't change that. You can check the software for malicious features and modify it to your liking. It may not be a copyleft licence, but that's an independent issue. Redistribution and access to the source code are different things. Just that the GPL happens to be a free software copyleft licence doesn't mean that every free software has to be copyleft.

So RMS would say, it's free software, don't use the term open source.
Please show me what lies you mean, I can't see them. Do they even say it is to be open source?

U rang?

Here is a bunch, I stopped updating it though but most of it should still be somewhat relevant.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144170.0

That's the wrong duck test!

I hereby propose borgcoin: A a cryptocurrrency which uses multiple hashing algorithms and is generated by successful double spends on other chains.

It's not like there is a binary version of it either. If you get access to the software you get the source, if you don't you don't.

You know what Richard Stallman would say?