The domain is registered to:

Andriy Bilous
c. Sicilia 212 atico 3
Barcelona 08013 ES
Phone: +34 656275110
Email: andrey AT andrinalina.com

The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.

How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down. If your point is that people are forced to use some company for certain services, well, that's already the case now: people are "forced" to buy food or else starve, but nobody would seriously suggest that grocers are taking people's money by force or that they constitute a kind of government. People could also grow their own food if they are willing to put in the time and effort, and in an arnacho-captital system, the same would be true of all vital services. If enough people don't like what the existing companies are doing, they can (and eventually will) put their resources together and form their own company. Compare this situation with every form of government that has ever existed, where if you don't like the government's doing, you not only have to put up with it, you have to keep paying for it, and you'll have force used against you if you don't.

Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.

This is known as the online disinhibition effect and it's actually quite easy to understand:

penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

As I understand, the Satoshi client selects a fee based on transaction data size, priority, and dust outputs. Only the data size fee is user-selectable; the client will enforce a minimum fee on low-priority transactions and transactions with dust outputs, but high-priority transactions with no dust outputs can be sent with no fee if the data size fee is set to zero (at least, I think that's how it works).

The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business. Sure, governments know that too, but they don't care because they have a monopoly on the use of force. When there's no monopoly on force, it will be priced more reasonably, making unnecessary violence unprofitable. Hopefully.

Suppose all these armed gangs people keep referring to band together against their common enemy? Seriously though, if it becomes a problem, I'm sure the companies ruling the world will try to negotiate peace with the invaders, what with war being a threat to their business and all.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.

I don't understand how this is supposed to work. If you have multiple Digital Promissory Notes backed by the same bitcoins, what happens when someone redeems one of the Digital Promissory Notes for its bitcoins? Then the others aren't backed anything anymore, so you've got the same problem. Fractional reserve banking always relies on trust: the depositors have to trust that the bank won't make unnecessarily risky loans with their money, and the bank has to trust its debtors to pay back their loans on time. There is fundamentally no way to create debt-based money without trust.

We don't hate you because you're Jewish, we hate you because you're being an immature jerk about this whole incident. Whether you're white, black, male, female, gay, straight, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - it doesn't matter, we hate all jerks equally. We're equal-opportunity haters. ^_^

It's not strange at all that the majority of coins in the hot wallet were only a few hours old at most. The hot wallet probably gets swept into the cold wallet every few hours or so. It would be more secure for funds to go straight to the cold wallet and transferred to the hot wallet as needed, but I guess doing it this way makes fast withdrawals easier. Or something. Either way, the real question is, what the Hell were these old coins doing in the hot wallet for so long without being either withdrawn or transfered to cold storage?

TORwallet charges a fixed 0.0005 BTC transaction fee.

Damn. I thought this was going to be a scheme to encode bitcoin URIs in the DNA of gentically-modified food products, thereby removing the need for price tags once hardware wallets start incorporating DNA sequencers. I mean, this is the 21st century after all, we're supposed to have cool stuff like this by now. This future never fails to disappoint me.

Fractional reserve banking with Bitcoin doesn't need "Digital Promissory Notes" or any other kind of protocol change. It is already possible as it is. Any of the larger hosted wallet services or exchanges could become a fractional reserve bank right now if they wanted to by just loaning out depositor's bitcoins and hoping the depositors don't try to withdraw their bitcoins until the loan is repayed. That's how fractional reserve banking works with real money, and there's no reason it won't work with Bitcoin. The only difference is that with Bitcoin there's no government to bail the banks out in the event of a bank run.

I like my burritos the way I like my vixens: hot and wet with a glistening orange coat and a decent amount of meat with an aroma that cuts the air and makes you want to eat one RIGHT NOW while still taking the time to fully appreciate all the complex flavours... Wait, where was I going with this comparison?

EDIT: Nevermind, didn't notice you were using MingW.

Is your \ming\bin folder in your system PATH? If not, you probably need to add it in order for it to work correctly.

No. I think you have absolutely no idea how the market works. Not all bitcoins are for sale at the same price, and some are not for sale at all. If a person (or corporation or government) wants to buy a large number of bitcoins, they can only do so if they can convince a large number of people to sell, and some people will not be convinced to sell their bitcoins unless a high price is offered. For this reason, the more bitcoins someone wants to buy, the higher the price per bitcoin becomes, and they won't be able to buy all the bitcoins because some people will not be willing to sell for any price.

If someone did buy a large quantity of bitcoins, driving up the price in the process, and then sold them again, the price would just drop back down for the same reason (to convince enough people to buy, they need to offer a low price). If they destroyed their bitcoins instead of reselling them, the price would simply stay high forever. They lose all the money they put in and everyone else becomes a little bit richer. For some reason, I just don't see any bank or government doing something like this.

Why would you guess that? Of course chargebacks are possible with debit cards, for exactly the same reason they are with credit cards. There is absolutely no difference between a debit card and a credit card other than that the money comes from your bank account instead of the issuer's bank account, thus saving the issuer the trouble of sending you a bill every month.

Also,

Escrow services already exist, and they do charge their own fees. But so what? It's a competitive market, so the fees will always be very reasonable. In any case, even without chargebacks, Bitcoin is in many ways safer than credit card transactions, since it impossible for a merchant to charge more than the customer agrees to pay, cannot charge the customer at a later date for a subscription service the customer never intended to sign up for, and (at least in cases where a shipping address is not required) cannot use the customer's details to commit identify fraud. The absolute worst thing that can go wrong with a bitcoin transaction is that the customer doesn't get the goods he paid for, which shouldn't be much of an issue when reputable companies and escrow services are involved.

In order for a transaction to be allowed for free, it must have no outputs less than 0.01 BTC, and it must be "high priority". Priority increases with the age and value of the transaction inputs: if you have only recently received your bitcoins before spending them, or if you are spending bitcoins which you received in a large number of small transactions (say, from various free bitcoin sites), your transaction will be considered "low priority" and require a fee.

There is also an optional fee on transaction data size, which affects whether your transaction will be accepted into a block which is already close to full (at least, I think that's how the transactions size fee works). Again, if you received your bitcoins in a large number of small transactions, transactions spending those coins will require a large amount of data, and attract a higher fee, if your client mandates the size fee (which the standard client does not).

On the other hand, if you receive a moderately large amount of bitcoins in a small number of transactions, and you don't spend them immediately, you will probably not have to pay a fee to spend them later.

The moral of the story: free bitcoins aren't so free when you actually want to spend them.

What do you mean "competitors have upped their prices ridiculously"? Spend Bitcoins' price has always been the Mt. Gox rate plus 10%, which is an entirely reasonable fee considering the service they provide (besides, if bitcoins go up in value (as they tend to do) the 10% fee will pay for itself very quickly).

The site is currently down.

EDIT: It's back up now. And thanks for the free coins.