No, you don't have to upgrade your client to receive coins from somebody using a BIP 16 multisignature wallet.

Testing is actually one of the reasons I don't like BIP 17; it is harder to test, because it is much easier to steal BIP-17 transactions if the network hasn't yet upgraded (Luke has had to test BIP 17 on the main network instead of testnet because I wrote a BIP-17-stealing robot and ran it on testnet).

Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this. They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the proposals.

I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds, say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be shelved for a while.

I'm going to skillfully avert attention to another topic to avoid answering your question directly in an effort to avoid outrage from the community on the ramifications of either choice. lol

1st: this means that all merchants and users need to be downloading the blockchain which I thought there was a consensus that eventually this isn't going to be possible anymore which again leads to centralization..

2nd: wouldn't this mean that when either BIP12, 16 or 17 get rolled out those clients that wont update will essentially ignore the new transactions so Gavin has to get the support from every single user, not just the majority of the miners in order to successfully implement that change?

Yes I understand. They check the blockchain.. But how can they tell which blocks in the chain are legitimate? If the small minority of miners changes to new rules unanimously, there wont be a fork and everyone will be forced to use the same longest blockchain now being generated under new rules. So how then does a client reject a transaction that is in the blockchain it uses I ask?

Umm hello, is this thing on (tap, tap).  Microtronix has been a reputable hosting provider for 10 years , we have clients in 7 countries of the world and offices in two   We not only have accepted CC's for years but we also accept Mexican Pesos, Lempira's and Quetzales

http://www.microthosting.com

How many invalid blocks had Deepbit had in the last 1000?  1? 5?  Invalid blocks shouldn't be more than 0.2% of total for a properly running pool.  With good pool server, LP, and proper miner stales are <0.3%. 

So you are paying 3% for 0.5% in cost.  If you like Deepbit and like a centralized Bitcoin that is fine.  It is a free network you can do as you please but don't try to rationalize it.  You are paying 2.5%+ for the privilege to centralize the network and add a point of failure.  When you include the fact that Deepbit doesn't pay transaction fees or merged mining it is >3.5%.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent.

Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected.

That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide.

Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage.

If you find this ridiculous,you should read about how young offenders in UK prisons get all sorts of creature comforts like a large screen TV,games console and a whole host of other things.It's really shocking.

I wonder how the benefits system from US and UK differ?

I think that reason is smoke and mirrors... Proceedural... Right. I believe it boils down to lawmakers not wanting to be under the same rules as the average citizen. Just look at the supreme court ruling for the drug testing for political candidates as unconstitutional, but the average citizen cant get a "decent" job anywhere today without one... even government jobs like those lawmakers. IF this bill comes back with mandates for anyone accepting public funds to undergo drug tests, you can be your last dollar there will be severe limitations based on some bastardized version of "probable cause" required, and certainly it will not be a blanket requirement, requiring all of them to undergo drug testing to get on the ballot, be elected, take controll of the office, or to keep the office if already in office. After all they are a different class of citizen and not the average slave like you and I.

I have my own problems with the drug war, but thats here nor there. Whats needed is consistency with everyone treated equally under the law. Not different rules and laws depending on your class or job description.

Exactly.

It's actually very healthy in many ways to have a deflationary environment, which can't be understood by someone who relies on the "economics 101" as it is taught today. I would never have supported Bitcoin so strongly if the monetary model wasn't exactly what it is. Bitcoin is the first real currency that will put the Austrian school to the test and I'm confident that it'll pass the test. This will not be the problem that kills Bitcoin.

It will undoubtedly lead to a smaller economy than we have now but people will be less in debt and they will have a much more solid foundation in their personal economies. This would apply to all levels of the economy, from governments to companies and regular people. I embrace this change, people should invest money in projects that they support from other perspectives than money. Investing only based on maximum return is an old way of thinking, investing to things that matter and actually produce meaningful things is the way to go.

Consider the amount of useless crap the economy produces today, the amount of absolutely unproductive development that is done... the amount of money that is invested in stuff that is only produced because they have enough money to create a marketing campaign convincing enough to manipulate people to buy them. This behaviour will have less reinforcement in a more deflationary environment because first of all consumers will consume less crap that they don't really need and investors will think differently because they have to.

The economy wouldn't die but it certainly would be different. Consumption and development would be focused more on things that 1) consumers feel they really need and 2) what investors and enterpreneurs feel they want to develop and produce. As long as the effective deflation isn't on hyper mode, and there is no reason to believe it would with the exception of short periods of rapid userbase inflation, there will still be a lot of consuming and a lot of investing.

Simply hoarding will give you a small increase in your purchasing power, a good investment will still make you much more than that. I could go on forever but the bottom line is that not only is a monetary system like this helpful in correcting our overly materialistic way of life but it will lead to healthier and more meaningful ways of spending money. And on top of everything, it will actually help save our planet. Less consumption = good.