It would be best if miners act independently. Perhaps someone can suggest that p2p mining is a solution, I don't know enough about that; certainly that seems better option than large pools that then risk dominating any actions that are taken by miners en masse. If you join a group, then perhaps necessarily you cede some control over what happens - not everyone can have their way.

A currency will reflect the people using it. A nation's currency of choice perhaps should reflect the state of that nation rather than wider interests, otherwise the normal negative feedback that encourages change might be stifled. Avoiding negative feedback, is in large part what's given us an economic crisis and not just a financial one.

Bitcoin will provide a useful option for individuals but I suspect will also necessarily be paralleled by national currencies of choice, in order there is flexibility to adapt to local economic reality.

I wish Scotland well and would be interested to see independence for them, if only that it'll give UK politics a shot in the arm.
However I can't help wonder that they are only a small population ~5 million and it asking a lot then of the fraction of those working ~2.5 million that they provide a high quality of living all round. If they can leverage natural resources, hold on to natural gas and any oil, then perhaps it's sustainable; if they are just a fraction of the mess the UK economy is now, perhaps they will still fair well relative to the rest of the UK but they do have the same albatross of debt to contend with.

Given the value of BTC will rise with wider adoption, putting some money to that now would help as an intermediate support. Not going to happen just yet though, as risk management heavily weighs down the thinking of companies, let alone countries.

I have a list of prices of MtGox $vwap from 17/7/2010 through 30/3/2013 but can't recall where that's from.

Is the history of exchange prices available somewhere?
With MtGox price off normal, having this data for other exchanges would be interesting too.

Potentially people value the coins relative to the price they bought them.
Those who know their coins came cheap, perhaps will understand better the need to spend those to kick start the economy and encourage merchants.

Hitler's a joke of course but it's the same of many successful projects, they are of their time. I wonder sometimes the number of discoveries that fall by the way from lack of a jigsaw piece or missing a partner contribution. Many of tomorrow's discoveries and innovations are probably being considered right now but lacking something to make them practical.

In politics there are alsorts of fools but more often than not they don't get to have their war. Sorry, I'm tired that's nonsense. Politics is the exception and every fool has their day!

I know nothing but it seems clear that this is a team rivalry. Payton Manning is Denver Broncos, who are cast as the likely losers of this match; Richard 'You mad, bro?' Sherman appears to be Seattle Seahawks and then I guess seen as being Payton Manning's nemisis and hero of what is likely to be the winning team. Outlook for Bitcoin in Denver: cloudy.

By default it's going to be BTC. I don't know if deamon offers mBTC yet, though it's output should state the unit, if options are avaliable.
What's suggested of course is not quite the proof that public addresses would be; I won't be convinced until I see the private keys for that.

If merchants for a while switch coins received for fiat, then spending your Bitcoins is the answer.

If Bitcoin takes off, it'll be because there is more ready access to buy; and if then there are places to spend and people spending to match that new income, then the price will not rise as quickly as it might with only buyers. So, perhaps wealthy developers and miners and then others with lots of coins, really should spend as many as they can afford to early on in that rise - and ideally relative to where they came in.

I did press the wrong button on github one time - copied the code into a new branch; perhaps that doesn't count! That monster only lived a few minutes before I found the nuke button.

A lot of work but would be interesting to see the data on the maximum value addresses have ever held.

That does make zero balance addresses very interesting then!

Very interesting. It would be useful to know the best way of getting at data in the blockchain; are there tools for that, is it in a standard format?

I'm surprised the blockchain holds so many zero balance addresses. Does a wallet creating new addresses broadcast all those just for the record? I don't understand why blockchain doesn't just hold transactions that have been actioned against addresses and then from that obviously would follow a minority of balances at zero.

Yes, absolutely.. but don't burn coins setting that up of course!

It's equally likely that you stumble on someone else's account. I'm not sure what occurs if two private keys to the same public key are used, I expect either are accepted as it stands.

Pics or it didn't happen of course.. those of us outside US might miss it!

Are there not properly three types?

I thought that some alt-coin had an issue with pre-mining, such that the owner decided to evidence his destroying the coins by sending to an address that was valid but *could not* be controlled by anyone; a /dev/null blackhole, as opposed obviously to those valid addresses that simply are not controlled at the moment but could be.

..or does Bitcoin not have the same equivalent /dev/null address?

It's quite likely they are looking out to cover any risk they might be held accountable for. If Bitcoin is not to be regulated, then with that comes a requirement that those using it acknowledge that they are not granted the same support from regulators and Government as they might be used to. In a society which accepts that crime is fought by delegating authority to and from Government, then it's to be expected that some regulation will occur - KYC at the point of exchange with fiat, at least is to be expected. It would be unrealistic to expect a sudden discontinuity in the balance of what the public and Government takes responsibility for.

Ok.. I don't know then why I can't scan that. Good luck.

I expect that economies under stress right now, can't afford to lose out on the opportunities that Bitcoin will likely provide. There's a good chance it'll inject a wave of new businesses - regardless of the fact that many new businesses fail, it'll also likely encourage a reasonable number of people with saving to start spending some of that. Even if it's only that it gives online businesses a % saving on banking fees, that fits well with doing well by real business and encourages banks to innovate. I don't think Government need to fear about banks losing out a small fraction of business to Bitcoin, and the potentially innovations that will do the economy real good are worth exploring, especially for financial centres like Sinapore; UK; New York.

Surely it's just a transliteration of that Japanese "John Doe"/"John Smith" name. It seems to be more normally Satoshi Nakamoto though.

You not wrong but it's worth noting that current options are rather pushing consumers away to any alternative that would offer what Bitcoin can.

All the little irritants help Bitcoin:Dealing with Banks is a hassle; Bank fees; Asking their permission to spend your money; Transaction and transmission cost; security of digital wallet v cash on person; potential discounts from businesses anxious to find any way to save money in a crisis; novelty; risk of Government Bail-ins; anxiety about saving; investment relative to 'high-interest' bank accounts giving 0.5%; etc; etc.

Marc Andresen's piece recently detailed the four constituencies; all the pressure is towards Bitcoin; and given what Bitcoin is beyond a store of currency, the prospects of it being used for verified transactions of alsorts, brings with it a very bright future.. so long as Governments aren't afraid of change and innovation which might help with fixing their economic crises.