I believe they now show up (as of 0.3.21) with a status of "immature".

See here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485.0

Oops, that was a pull request and hasn't been merged yet. I'll shut up now.

It would be awesome if these graphs were available real(ish)-time on Bitcoincharts or the like.

Paging tcatm...

edit... Seems I didn't finish reading your post. Sending you some BTC for your work.

bitcoin.exe and bitcoind.exe should return the exact same data when called via JSON-RPC. You might want to kill your %AppData%\Bitcoin directory (saving the wallet.dat) as I mentioned in the other thread, uninstall, and reinstall.

Copy your wallet.dat to a safe place, then delete %AppData%\Bitcoin. If you still get crashes, do that again and uninstall/reinstall.

gethashespersec returns 0 because bitcoind is not hashing using the CPU. It doesn't know the hash rate of connected clients.

You don't need the -server argument when using bitcoind, as that is all bitcoind does. When you use server with bitcoin.exe, it enables JSON-RPC, which allows you to make all the same API calls while also using the GUI.

I don't understand why you executed bitcoind over and over and over again. Running it once starts the daemon which runs in the background.

I'm not clear the goal of this change, nor what is changing. Is this regarding how a node deals with transactions from orphaned blocks, due to forks?

hmm... Nevermind, after looking at the github page I think I know what this is. Basically, if you have a system (like say Blockexplorer) that needs to look at all blocks/transactions, this is a way to make sure you get every one?

What detrimental effect does miscapitalization of a single letter cause? I really don't think it's going to confuse anybody.

I think the difference between "anarcho-capitalism" and "anarcho-socialism" (personally, I think both of those terms are meaningless, you cannot impose your will on anarchy) simplifies to a difference in the amount of time necessary for abandoned property to be considered unclaimed. Does this seem correct to you?

If anarchy is achieved, would you accept that some people (myself included) would prefer to live in a system resembling anarcho-capitalism? I accept that some prefer to to live in a system resembling anarcho-socialism.

eMansipator is in the process of creating a newbie-type thread with lots of information:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7269.0

Do U.S. dollars or gold provide a way to trust the receiver is who they say they are, identify yourself as the sender, or add an arbitrary message?

I would say no to all of the above, in which case, why does Bitcoin the currency need to have those features?

The internet is a peer to peer network.

Does it really matter? I think eMansipator has a valid point, it can get confusing if you don't know whether one is talking about the client software or the currency units.

Well, according to the software itself, it's "Bitcoin".

listtranasctions <account> [count=10]

Where <account> is an optional account name (not address), and count is an optional parameter specifying how many record to return, defaulting to 10.

I thought it prompted for a password on send? This method seems more useful to me, as you can leave your client running without worrying about an attacker or malware sending all of your money.

Well, recent history has shown that it's a lot easier for governments (namely the United States) to seize domain names than physical objects. There is also the worry that ICANN will give in to political pressure and play censorship whackamole at the behest of powerful governments.

Looks like one was solved 5 minutes ago, at 2119 UTC.

I think you're missing an important point of Mike's: separate chains will have different difficulties.

If you set up Bittimestamp to generate a block on average once per minute, one will be generated once per minute, regardless of Bitcoin's difficulty. This is because for every hash that wins a Bitcoin block, millions are thrown away as "not sufficiently difficult". However, any one of those hashes (or many of them) are sufficiently difficult for the Bittimestamp chain, since there are potentially fewer miners computing for that chain.

So you can put BitDNS (and whatever other alternate non monetary block chains emerge) in the main Bitcoin block chain, but that forces everyone to process and store DNS data. Or you can come up with a robust and extendable way for any and all chains to be mined simultaneously.

What technical issues are solved by storing DNS data in the main block chain, as opposed to an alternate yet connected block chain, as Mike has proposed?

I find the idea of one block chain per application, but connected in such a way that they can all be mined against simultaneously, much more appealing than one monolithic block chain. Similar to those that want to change Bitcoin to have constant inflation, or distribute payouts more fairly, or anything else... rather than trying to impose a change on all Bitcoin users, why not start a new chain instead?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

0x6763, why are you so hostile? Your tone is not contributing to this discussion.