It's a great idea: like Project Wonderful but for bitcoin instead of dollars. I'll certainly use it on some of my sites.

And yet, Project Wonderful does not seem to have been wildly successful for website owners. The ad prices seem to be quite low compared to what one would get from AdSense. I can't put my finger on why this is.

I would describe spread-spectrum as "playing nice", because it's not depending on the force of the state to exclude competitors.

For those who don't know "spread spectrum" technology, it's radio communication that doesn't use any specific frequency or "channel". Rather, it spreads the signal over a wide range of frequencies, but uses a coded pattern that allows a receiver to reconstruct the desired signal.

There's no fixed limit to the capacity of spread spectrum transmissions. As more people transmit at the same time, the effective data rate per user slows down (or, a voice communication gets more background noise), but no-one gets blocked out. A higher-power transmitter gets better results, of course, as does a more directional antenna, but it's a near-optimum way to share out the limited resource of the radio spectrum without any central authority.

I'm from the UK (and always happy to buy BTC by UK bank transfer or cheque, at a few percent above the highest MtGox bid).

Good suggestion. If Gavin wants to go, I will contribute $100. Can't pay in BTC at this time, sorry.

There's already a meter, under the logo. Currently there's 361 BTC available.

Gavin, I don't think any donor is going to mind whether there's a reCAPTCHA or AdsCaptcha. Also, I don't think it will be long before you can change the payout to 0.005 BTC.

What's the approximate daily payout, if you don't mind me asking?

Looking good. The hands are greatly improved.

I'm selling the five-letter domain name *****.com

... Reserve price is 100 BTC. Sold to the highest bid by Friday 21 January, noon GMT. I might sell it privately before then if I receive a substantial "buy it now" offer by PM.

Also it's an anagram of "Aim OK, shoot Satan", so take your pick!

It's comparable to diabetics who only inject themselves using syringes from trusted sources.

You can disable restrictions for sites that use the blocked technologies in ways that are useful to you, provided you trust those sites.

So you can explain to those people that 7200 new bitcoins are generated every single day! And, although the rate will decrease in the future, it won't drop to zero until after most of us are dead.

Do you mean, is there some social engineering exploit that will make government employees start doing things for our benefit rather than for their own benefit?

Lobbying, perhaps?

Indeed. But it might work for MyBitcoin, MtGox etc to get together and agree to ostracise any coins that have been stolen. This might be perceived as a useful service by customers of those sites.

As freetx says, the devil is in the details.

There's a small example of this technique in the multimedia presentation that you see before you go up Sydney Tower. It's monochrome (like the Japanese avatar) and it seems to be an image projected from a CRT onto a sheet of flat glass. It's arranged so that there are no reflections on the glass and the glass is effectively invisible, yet somehow the projected image interacts with the glass and seems to emanate from that position in space. Perhaps the CRT emits ultra-violet and reacts with phosphors on the glass.

It's certainly not true holography, but it's a stunning visual effect.

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. I think it's almost certain that such an early block would have been generated by Satoshi. Of course, "spent" is quite a strong term. The coins might just have been sent to a different wallet.

Democracy is centralized power, so it can't possibly be a threat to centralized power. That's like saying that democratic control of the Fed would be a threat to centralized banking.

Oh, come on. If the co-operative needs the truck owners more than they need the co-op, the co-operative will give in to some of the truck drivers' demands. If the truck drivers need the co-op more than the co-op needs them, either the co-op will find someone else to drive the trucks, or the truck drivers will come crawling back asking for work again. In this way, a stable equilibrium will soon be reached. In a non-coercive society, everyone benefits from co-operation and negotiation and a show of strength is rarely needed.

I'm working on it, though very slowly. I'm doing a 2-minute animation based on the script that I posted earlier in this thread. I'm 30% of the way through the visuals, then there's the narration, music and sound effects to be done.

In any case, my project doesn't meet the criteria for some of the promised bounties. The more people or groups producing videos, the better.

Bitcoin has the potential to "change everything".

Whenever I hear people say things like "there will never be peace while the government controls the money supply", I think "well, we'll know one way or the other soon enough".

Sure, I don't know that. But six months ago he refused a bounty payment from me (for making Bitcoin run without error on Fedora Linux), saying that he had "plenty of bitcoins".

I'll be the first to donate if ever he drops any hint of struggling financially.

Sure, but ArtForz also has way more than one bitcoin address.

Here's a statistic I'd be interested in (I'm not sure why). What is the earliest block whose generated coins have been spent?

Indeed, that is why anarchy would work so well for poorer people. Most of the destitute people in the village are creative, resourceful, hard-working people. But in a statist society they compete against corporations who can retain profits while externalising many risks (that's what a state-protected corporation is, in essence).

In the absence of state coercion, the people in the village would have much more opportunity to benefit from self-organization and bottom-up growth, and the village would flourish. You don't need a large organization to perform agriculture, services, or most kinds of manufacturing. Sure, a factory is capital-intensive, but that doesn't mean it needs a corporation. Instead, it can be the coming-together of a number of individuals or smaller autonomous organizations, one of whom does one subtask: owns and leases the building, owns and leases various pieces of machinery, supplies and drives a truck, etc.

Only the very largest of projects (designing and building a new kind of airliner, for example), need more than this, and those industries will of course only exist in heavily-populated areas with high levels of education etc.