Yes.

CPU mine Primecoins, sell for Bitcoins.

I feel the same way. Once this gets dumbed down to my level there's all sorts of stuff I can't wait to try... Last time I got OT+Moneychanger to actually work was like a year ago, and I couldn't figure out much more than Baskets. I'll probably be most useful updating the wiki for other mere mortals.

Once the GUI is easy for everyone to use, do you folks think a prediction market might be a better model for these bounties? That would eliminate squatting, and also give participants a good projection for completion dates.

Once the URL target changes, the block can no longer be validated.

In my opinion anything other than the dominant cryptocurrency is an alt. Right now Bitcoin has an overwhelming market share. It shouldn't be Theymos' job to distinguish which alternatives are sufficiently innovative or mature.

As great as Namecoin is, it could eventually be replaced by colored coins or something else layered on top of (not next to) the Bitcoin blockchain. Litecoin was really well planned and is really well organized/maintained, but it's ultimately a Tenebrix "clone". We can't even categorize Ripple until they release the damn source.

Since Bitcoin is "not anonymous" and you're confident about the primary use of mixers, surely you can provide some data as to what percentage of mixer volume is for criminal money laundering, and what percentage is innocent people who desire privacy?

No, they create a new address for each customer. They will always be one step ahead of the blacklisting authorities.
We have billions and billions of hearts! At least as far as p2p software is concerned, 100% decentralization seems to be working well.
I'm not willing to sell out what I believe in just to get rich quick. And that's assuming a blacklist would work, would result in greater adoption, and would stop short of becoming USD 2.0. Personally I only found out about Bitcoin when I found myself unable to donate to Wikileaks because of a blacklist.

That's sexist, heteronormative, ageist, and Orwellian. It ignores the facts that in-person transactions are never anonymous, that Bitcoin was designed and developed with privacy in mind, and that some people don't share your empowered social status.

Everyone who values their privacy. For example if you want to buy porn and don't want some cyberstalker to send a list of sites to your mother.

You should add an option for "No, and I see what you're trying to do."

How does anyone know which addresses correspond to coin mixers, and which mixers don't keep logs? There are a few we all know about, but probably some private mixers too. All it takes is one successful mix at any point in the future after the ransom has been paid.

How do you know your blacklist administrator hasn't been bribed by kidnappers or the NSA? Centralization = failure.

Why are we talking about hypotheticals? Right NOW there is a currency where the users unwillingly support the abduction and killing of innocent people. It pays for men with guns and predator drones to conquer whole countries and establish dictatorships. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Surely this bad PR would have destroyed it by now?

This commenter gets it:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_open_to_value_manipulation.3F

limitfreerelay=0 wouldn't result in a fork because these nodes would still recognize blocks containing 0-fee txs as valid. One person doing this doesn't make much difference, but enough people doing so would pretty much ban 0-fee txs because miners would never receive them in the first place.

Then you'd think he would have made more than 21 million of them!

Fortunately, this can be fixed client-side without changing the protocol: just go into your Bitcoin-Qt settings and tell it to display mBTC. The number of zeros displayed is completely arbitrary and up to you. I realize it's cumbersome to say "millibitcoins" for now, but so is "New Peso" - because of inflation and deflation, the common vernacular has to adapt periodically or else get stuck with too many zeros in one direction or the other. There's no way around it, even for gold-backed and fiat currencies.

Bitcoin-Qt doesn't just download blocks from miners; it also relays transactions to and from other non-mining nodes. This is why you can see unconfirmed transactions before they've been included in a block. By setting limitfreerelay=0 you will still participate in the main chain, but not pass along any 0-fee transactions which have yet to be mined.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Relaying

Regarding panic: the list of people who know what a collision is AND are incredibly bad at math is very small.

Other similarly plausible alternatives include (but are not limited to):

• OP's computer got hacked, and the hacker sent them the coins either accidentally or for the lulz.
• Santa Claus was watching and sent him his present early.
• He is dreaming that he won 8 BTC, and none of us really exist.

2 is essentially insider trading, which is virtually impossible to detect with cryptocurrency.
3 is just like any other assurance contract. For example, you could offer to implement a nice escrow gui in the client, or publish an educational video, once a certain number of coins have been pledged. Having a fund for each task also gives you more market-based information as to what your priorities should be. Here's a great example, how they are funding the next Open-Transactions client:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225954.0
For this OT example, instead of one person requiring X bitcoins, the bounty grows until someone claims it.

Hazard and c4n10 will do it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208578.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224783.0

There are lots of ways you could go about funding CatholicCoin:
1) You could ask the church to reimburse you for your labor out of their 25%, or up front.
2) You could buy CC's right before a patch, watch the price go up, and then sell.
3) You could create assurance contracts for new features.

If Satoshi got 25% of all Bitcoins mined, that would be about 900 BTC per day! If you do a set percentage, you'll make nothing at first and way more than enough later on. Be careful using other coins as your benchmarks - some of them are just pump-and-dump get rich quick schemes.

And worst case scenario, there might just not be enough demand to support the coin in the first place. Sorry if this isn't helpful, I've just seen some really hostile receptions to new cryptocurrencies.

Freicoin hasn't failed, assuming you share my definition of "not failed" as "people are using it". But last I checked they haven't actually donated any coins from the central fund. Personally I don't have any reason to trust them, and my skepticism grows with every coin in that wallet. Figuring out how to fairly distribute money is Really Hard. That's where CatholicCoin would have a big advantage because Catholics already assume the church can distribute money fairly.

That was my reaction too. I argued with them about it for a while, but entering those coins into circulation isn't high on their list of priorities and I couldn't think of a solution. Well, besides just eliminating the central fund completely.

I suggest getting a priest or a church accountant to publish their own receiving address, so any user can independently verify that the church got its share without having to trust you.

IMHO you should emulate the Bitcoin Foundation's donation-only policy and avoid asking for another 25% beyond what's already going towards the church. That's a LOT of money!

Bitcoin isn't a company, it's a protocol. It makes no more sense for Bitcoin to give to charity than for TCP/IP to give to charity. In case you're thinking the Bitcoin Foundation ought to give to charity, I'd like to point out it IS a charity intended to pay developers and coordinate real-world implementation issues.

That being said...

1) You not being Catholic shouldn't be a problem, but it will be - Catholics won't trust you.

2) Regardless of trademark legality, you need explicit church approval for this to be considered legitimate.

3) Why use a decentralized coin with centralized goals? If we have to trust a single point of failure regardless, then several Open Transactions servers would be much cheaper. This would also allow the church to more easily adjust fees and policy.

4) Learn a lesson from Freicoin: you need a complete plan, INCLUDING HOW COLLECTED FUNDS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED, before the coin is launched. Freicoin was 100% p2p up until launch, when they pulled the switcheroo and gave 80% of new coins to their foundation because they felt mining it all would be wasteful. Now Freicoin is a joke - a coin meant to prevent hoarding which is being hoarded even more than Bitcoin, by its own founders. You have a huge advantage because CatholicCoin has an obviously fair recipient for all revenue. Don't spoil that by putting the cart before the horse - get a local priest (if not a bishop) to verify his receiving address ASAP or the coin will look like a scam. Once the coin is successful this administration might move to Vatican City, but don't expect anyone to trust some random guy with revenue at launch. I can't stress this enough.

Since the Vatican has its own sovereignty and its users are OK with centralization, wouldn't it make more sense to issue a gold (or art?) backed e-cash if the church is interested in pursuing this?

I think the arguing doesn't stop because you either insult everyone who argues with you - "enjoy hell", "learn2read", or because you haven't taken the time to actually understand the other side's position - "non believers [in god] don't believe in anything [else]". Atheism is not nihilism; we don't just live without a care in the world - almost all of us care about making the world better. If you're only helping others because you think you'll get a reward after death then you're not altruistic at all, you're more selfish than any of us.

I've had plenty of very interesting religious discussions with Christians, but it has to start with mutual respect.