I think you also collect the transaction fees associated with those transactions, meaning that you have to have the client set to generating coins. Can someone confirm? Come to think of it, that doesn't solve the problem of having minuscule processing power compared to the rest of the network, since there's just as much competition for the fees as the regular awards per block. I suppose the incentive to "generate coins" will have to come from the desire to win the lottery by solving a block, and that depends on the value of bitcoins increasing dramatically.

People will also run the client for the sake of collecting transaction fees.

Apparently, one can get 68.31 Mhash/s out of an Nvidia GTX460. I'm running about 20 Mhash/s less. Do I just have to mess with the -f and -w modifiers to improve my hash rate or is there any logic or known parameters I can use?

Good question. Although, for the sake of argument, I take pollution to mean oil spills, chemical runoff, and dangerous fumes. I wasn't considering carbon dioxide, not because I don't consider it a pollutant, but because I don't believe we have any good solutions for curbing its production.

Regarding the discipline of a population, what would stop a stateless society from developing one? Suppose the largest, most powerful militia teams up with the largest, most powerful court, and the largest, most powerful food producers. Such a conglomerate could easily coerce the population into cooperation, because they wouldn't have the discipline to choose liberty over security and food. Does this example explain why states rarely go away?

Ok, I'll buy that a stable, healthy society can have a state or not. However, I remain unconvinced that statelessness offers the best framework, or lack thereof, for a society. It seems that a stateless society requires an especially disciplined populace.

For example, a pollutive factory might produce a desirable product. Perhaps only the people living downstream suffer from the pollution. They complain to a court that rules in their favor, but the factory does not comply. The downstream people, as their only non-violent recourse, boycott the factory and ostracize its workers. However, these actions affect no change because the upstream people would rather have the factory's desirable products than support their downstream brethren. The downstream people can now either put up with the pollution, flee, or attempt to shut down the factory with violence, potential instigating a war with the upstream people. Unless the upstream people choose to aid their neighbors over materialism, the issue escalates to violence.

If this society had a state however, the court could coerce the factory into compliance from the outset, preluding a violent confrontation from the start.

Just trying to understand anarchy better.

Google Translate did a surprisingly good job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

There's no good way to measure the market share of Linux, but it certainly more than barely there. We're getting off topic though.

Hasn't this been done?

Then, speaking more broadly, how do we resolve conflicts, those which we typically resolve peacefully with the help of the state, not according to the size of one's mob?

Usually. As such, most prices don't include sales tax.

One could have a webcam aimed at the stock, on top of a scale with a visible display, next to a TV set to a 24 hour news channel. A surprise audit would consist of withdrawing or depositing some stock and watching the value on the scale change. Of course, such a scheme would only work if we only counted the mass of the stock. We obviously don't for paper money.

Only to the same extent of copyright.

Not so with copyleft. The whole idea, or at least a big part of it, is to exploit overly extensive copyright protections in order to give those who infringe on the rights of end users a taste of their own medicine.

...Unless I misunderstood you.

I happen to like the GPL. It's a big, beautiful fuck-you to the entire copyright system. That said, I see nothing wrong with the MIT license for the "official" Bitcoin client. Anyone who wants a GPL Bitcoin client badly enough can just take the source code for 0.3.19, make some changes, give his version a different name, and release it under the GPL. No more butthurt.

Do you need any recourse against some jerk or group of jerks making harmful messes in your vicinity?

That doesn't look like an official Rheingold site though. Seems more like some guy selling them for a bitcoin each.

Yes.

Any chance you can convince the issuers of Rheingold to peg it to the bitcoin?

For Timecoin to work, it would have to be just scarce enough. Although, for the currency to act as a proper counterpart to Bitcoin, wouldn't each node decide on its own rate of inflation?

Lol, here's mine, I think. A little off though.

What about examples where corporations didn't play nice resulting in a bad outcome, like the depletion of fisheries in the northern Atlantic? Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

But without government how do corporations play nice with scarce resources like electromagnetic spectrum, the environment, fisheries, etc.?