"Make it easier for users to work with alternative/non-ISO/private currencies. (http://uservoice.com/a/35yKe)"

Folks, I made the above suggestion to the GnuCash developers to include better support for currencies that do not meet ISO requirements, like the bitcoin. I hope you'll all up vote it.

To use Bitcoin-OTC, after registering, I just have to authenticate myself by hashing a string with my private key and sending back the output. Bitcoin-OTC will then recognize me because only someone with my unique private key could have created such an output from the initial string. Couldn't other web services do the same, like say, Mt. Gox? Do they not do so because of technical reasons, or is GPG just too hard for some people?

Which bitcoin, or fraction thereof, have users transacted the most? I understand that some folks like to collect freshly generated bitoins, but let's show some respect for Bitcoinville's community bicycle.

I was really impressed with the job Anonymous did on HBGary Federal. Could they help to propagate Bitcoin? Could Anonymous find Bitcoin useful? Stupid question? We could always move the thread to off-topic and just talk about Anonymous.

Fed up with the state of the Earth, a group of people decide to build a space ship and find a new habitat among the stars. Due to weight constraints, they can't bring very much stuff. Luckily, bitcoins, weigh nothing. As their favorite earthly currency, they decide to bring it with them to their new home.

Assuming that they can find another habitable rock, get there without succumbing to the hazards of space travel, not trash said rock and annihilate themselves, and then reunite somehow with Earth, will the bitcoins they will have generated still work?

"The coercion-free beer for discerning anarchist!"

As a homebrewer, I understand beer. I do not completely understand anarchism though. If I can figure out how a brewery might function in an anarchist society I suppose I might learn some more about anarchism.

Apart from my own fascination with beer I would think that some aspects of a brewery might allow for some interesting discussion in the context of a hypothetical anarchy. For example, breweries require substantial amounts of grain, water, and hops. However, the inhabitants of said society would also desire grain and water, and farming hops also requires water and land that could otherwise produce grain. Breweries also generate lots of heat and require either fuel or electricity to do so. How would the society reconcile the competing demands for these resources without coercion, governmental or otherwise? Unless the population found itself particularly susceptible to alcoholism, I don't think the brewery could sell enough beer to significantly affect the prices of the resources I listed. Furthermore, if the resources became scarce, the demand for beer would decrease in the face of more pressing needs. Then again, in the absence of dependably safe drinking water, the society would come to view beer as a necessity. But, I digress.

I suspect that a brewery could function free of coercion if its workers had come together to build it and now own it as partners. But what if they sought to expand and bring on more workers? How might these new workers also come to own shares of the brewery and avoid mere wage labor? Would they simply own shares of each batch? How is that fair for the original owners, having already laid out the capital and effort to build the brewery? Would the newcomers have to buy in?

I guess I really want to know how anarchists expect to avoid economic coercion through wage labor. Bonus points if you can stick to the beer theme in your responses.

Let's use Bitcoin (singular, with upper case letter b) to describe the protocol, network, and software, and bitcoin(s) (singular or plural, with lower case letter b) to describe actual bitcoins, as generated by computers.

Examples:

• "He installed Bitcoin on my system"
• "I sent you a bitcoin"
• "You sent me five bitcoins"
• "I will accept bitcoins in exchange for US dollars"
• "I will accept payment via Bitcoin"
• "I will accept payment in bitcoins"

There.

Bitcoin fans enjoy the freedom that the currency promises to provide. We like that no government or central authority controls it and that no other currency offers the same security and privacy. However, only people with the privilege of Internet access can possibly enjoy these benefits. The rest have no choice but to barter or stick with their governments’ currency. For governments so inclined, might the proliferation of bitcoin mean greater control over the technologically deficient poor? If so, how can we avoid or mitigate such an outcome? Should we even care?