Thank you for this recommendation. I'm up to page 50 now, and finding it interesting and worthwhile.

There's that "rush" when you use the computer in the morning and you see that it says "Generated: +50.00". There's also that "downer" when you have gone weeks without generating.

Yes, pre-emptive approval (or disapproval) would be great.

As for stats, advertisers are going to want them so that they can set their bids. But it's not urgent.

Who would want to sell stuff for a currency which is likely to rise in the long term? Oh yeah, everyone. So the two sides to this equation work in opposite directions. The rational buyer would offer less than the USD equivalent price, and the rational seller would be happy to sell for less than the USD equivalent price (in order to gain the coins).

In my opinion the growth of trade in goods is slowed by "ordinary" concerns such as the difficulty of buying bitcoins with a credit card, or the early development stage of escrow and arbitration services, rather than by considerations of inflation and deflation.

"Closing price" seems a pretty arbitrary notion for an exchange that's open 24 hours per day. One could equally look for the "highest all time 2.03pm price at MtGox".

Approvable ads represent a lot of development work, and would add some complexity to the interface.

As an intermediate measure, there could be a facility to reject an ad that is already running. Perhaps with two options: "Reject this ad from this website" and "Reject this ad from all my websites".

Looking back at ArtForz's analysis of Nenolod's action (earlier in this thread), I was amused to read that when the Slashdot article was published the total generating capacity of the entire Bitcoin network was 200 MHash/sec. That's one-third of what a single 5970 GPU card will do now.

An infinite number of digital currencies can be created, and the government can't buy them all. I don't think the government will want to create a new business model:

1. Create a digital currency
2. Get some people to start using it
3. The government buys all the coins
4. Profit!

1. Some people want to trade, and don't have a GPU card, so they have no easy way to get BTC except by buying.

2. Some people are preparing to start up new BTC-based businesses, and need to build up a stock of BTC as their working capital.

3. Some people are speculating.


Absolutely. No-one should buy BTC unless they are comfortable with the chance of losing everything.

This special offer is limited to the first 10,000 participants.

Heh, you youngsters can talk about your 50-year investments. I'm old enough that I won't be around in 50 years, so I'll need to opt for the 20-year investment option.

Zimbabwe perhaps, having recently abandoned the Zimbabwe Dollar?

Each bundle of 50 generated coins, together with any associated transaction fees, gets its own address. A different address will always be used for each subsequent bundle of generated coins.

If the generated coins have not been spent, there's no way to know whether two bundles were generated by the same miner or by different miners. When the coins get spent, it's possible that a single transaction will include both bundles, at which time the information appears in the block chain and everyone can deduce that the two bundles were generated by the same miner.

There are ways around this (e.g. exporting a key from one wallet and importing it into another, or using a modified client that never combines generated bundles when sending coins) but I don't think there are any standard tools available.

A more workable option might be "No unapproved ads", so that an ad doesn't go live unless the publisher has explicitly approved it.

In the United Kingdom, members of the Upper House (the "Lords") are still not elected by the people.

Also it's interesting to note that, historically, the more repressive regimes have ruled over more polluted countries. After the Soviet Union fell, it became clear that its industries were more polluting than those in the West. During the partition of Germany, East German pollution was much higher than West German pollution. State power certainly doesn't solve pollution.

Yes it does, but the interesting question is whether the Internet (peer-to-peer communication and transactions) will make a different outcome possible "the next time around".

The state can probably not be defeated, but it can perhaps be made irrelevant.

Just one more:


"Processes" should be "process".


Why not append the sentence "Feel free to steal this article and use it however you like."

There's absolutely no reason for you to feel bad. You donated funds for a purpose, and they were not all needed for that purpose, so of course you are entitled to a guilt-free refund.

Also, you donated far more than most people. You donated ten times as much as I did. So you're the one who has the least reason to feel bad.

I think it's healthy for people to express their bigotry freely. It's healthy for the individuals concerned, and healthy for society as a whole, to have all this stuff aired.

But...


Nanaimogold is wearing his hetero-gonads far more prominently than Bruce wore his gay-gonads, therefore nanaimogold should not be surprised that, by his own explanation, so many people were "put off".

In the UK there are alternatives to the standard residential fee structure. One of those provides very cheap off-peak electricity in exchange for slightly increased peak prices. For most people it's not a good deal, but for someone who wanted to use their computer normally in the day but mine all night it would be perfect.

But who sets up those "standards" in a democracy? The majority. So, in a democracy of 51 men and 49 women, if the 51 men vote that it's OK for men to rape women, then there's no "tyranny by the majority"? I don't think so.


Precisely. Democracy is only "tyranny by the majority" when it's backed by the initiation of violence by a democratic state. But anarchism accommodates voluntary democratic processes whenever they meet the needs of those who are voluntarily participating.