rPgdVuzcRgL8DJRsdoqgjR6N5bqYkVBRbC

Very interesting experiment, however your categories are not abstract enough. I think in the most abstract terms the society should be organized such that the most well-being of all present (and suitably discounted) future members of the society is maximized. From this your categories are more or less all in the depends category since they are just means to archive a goal.
As long as an equal society is not possible, social mobility is the next best thing.
No, inflation reduces the risk of enterprising individuals. Therefore I think that some inflation is a good thing.
The system should first of all provide for the essential political freedoms. If economic freedom is compatible with these, then they are desirable.
Yes.
If a taxless system can be proposed in which infrastructure (etc.) is still build, then the system should not levy taxes
Yes.
In general no. However there may be reasons for protectionism, for example the domestic food production should be assured.
Yes.
From my other answers, this is a inevitable conclusion.
Probably one can actually prove in utilitarianism that a flat tax is actually morally wrong.
Yes, since these are examples were the common interest and the individual interest diverge.
Usually yes, however there are natural monopolies in certain markets. Disrupting these will just see the rise of the next one.
No, except when strictly necessary.
Yes. The only exception I can think of at the moment would be food shortages during a famine.

This depends on your definition of state

In Communism you do not have the distinction between private companies and communities (aka state). So your workplace will also have to organize public services (like road building and security). In an anarchy this needs to be organized by a voluntary group of interested people (in practice likely aligned with companies). So if you think that the private sector should also provide essential public services, then you would call yourself a capitalist anarchist. If you think that the state should take over production of goods, then you are a communist. But one entity would in the end produce both.

I believe BTCs should go up, since everybody will try to get out of the dollar. However if the dept ceiling is not lifted we are in completely uncharted territory, so I may be wrong. For example, if people still believe in the dollar but there is a liquidity crisis, people will need to get cash to buy their groceries and therefore they would be forced to sell their BTCs at any rate that they could get.


I am certainly not an expert economist, however I tried to understand what could happen in such an event. And based on what I did understand, the US government has several options how to react. It could serve its dept, refusing to pay other bills. Then teachers, policemen and Northrup Grumman  are in trouble which will in turn put shopkeepers and Northrup Grumman employees into jeopardy. They would then need to sell their bitcoins (and their other assets) to pay their bills and therefore this is a deflationary scenario (and the value of bitcoins will go down).
If the government instead chooses to default on its dept, then first of all the banks and insurance companies are in trouble. Especially since the US a currently rated AAA and therefore they do not need to monitor their exposure to US dept as closely as (for example) their exposure to Greek dept. Additionally they probably have to pay the CDS insurance for US bonds. This leads to a situation were first of all banks can not trust each other and therefore we get a 2008 scenario. But unlike 2008 the US goverment has just defaulted and can not bail out the banks! So some banks will go bankrupt. Then the other banks need to write off their dept too, leading to other bankruptcies. So the banks can not give as much credit to entrepreneurs, who can not hire anyone and therefore again more people need to convert BTCs to dollars.

However the US dollar is also the global reserve currency, and would likely loose this status. Then people will no longer need to buy dollar in turn to purchase oil and additionally they would stop investing in US stocks. So capital flows out of the dollar and the dollar gets cheaper compared to other currencies. The question is essentially, do BTCs behave like a foreign currency, then they would go up, or do they behave like a local commodity, then they would go down.

Since the effects act on different timescales, I believe that it will be a rather wild ride. First the value of bitcoins would go up, since the withdraw of capital effects are faster than the deflationary effects, then they will go down as the deflationary effects become stronger at some point and in the end bitcoins will be higher since the trust in the monetary system will be weakened.

A low security solution would be:
1. Let the sender (costumer) sign the transaction and send it to the receiver (shopkeeper).
2. The receiver can check that there are enough founds in the account and the signature. Therefore he can have a quite high level of trust in the transaction.
3. Receiver then sends the transaction to the network for actual verification (and inclusion into the block chain).

This solution can be compromised (I believe) if the sender spends all his BTC in just one block. But I believe for small transactions it should be good enough. And on the sender side you need only the ability to generate and sign transactions, not a complete blockchain, this could be good for mobile use.
The security of over the counter trades could of course be easily enhanced, if you are willing to let go of privacy. Then the sender could sign (in handwriting not cryptographically) some receipt of the transaction which is thrown away, if the BTC transaction runs smoothly. Otherwise the receiver of the transaction would have some legal leverage.

Interesting, you could embed information which has a timestamp and is signed by all following blocks Don't know what use this is at the moment.

For more information on bitcoin, there is the paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf which I try to understand at the moment.

At the moment I do not see the motivation to try to destroy bitcoin for a government. And even if they would try such a stunt, I doubt that mining all bitcoins is a reasonable strategy. Much easier would be to attack either BTC users directly (Bitcoin is P2P, so a modified client can log IP adresses in the network) or manipulate the market such that it would seriously suppress the acceptance of bitcoins. 

I believe the worst thing that can happen over clocking nowadays is that your card will be unstable. This usually happens when a card gets to hot, so you should watch the temperature, a value below 80°C should be fine. With Ati cards on Linux the command to get the temperature is

For Windows there should be some option in the driver (or third party software).

I found also https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page very helpful.
The basic idea is, that transactions of Bitcoins are stored in such a way that it is impossible to forge a Bitcoin or a transaction. With this they have the essential properties of money, except that they are not universally accepted. But this can be solved with time.

What is this? A P2P filesharing/hosting using bitcoins as incentive to host files?

A distributed backup of the internetz ...
The technical challenge should be, what is the expectation you have of the website. For example if you require the website to be down before you switch to the backup, then a attacker could just change the website to saying something like "This site is being blocked!"

However, a proxy which loads the site from the server and from a stored P2P copy should be possible. And if both differ then you get a icon in the browser which lets you switch between the site and the copy.

I never really looked intro freenet, but at least the wikipedia article sounds very much like what you have in mind.

This depends essentially on what you mean by torrent based webhosting. If you want to have a censorship-proof website that anyone can easily access by simply putting a address (URL) into the browser, the answer is no since the domain name system is rather centralized and if the DNS server does not resolve the URL to an IP you can not use convenient names. Perhaps you remember, that wikileaks was forced to move from wikileaks.org to wikileaks.ch. The next step would be, that you communicate directly with an IP adress, which needs to be routed to a specific server (or rather a specific location). If this location is shut down, your website is again shut down until you manage the convince the routers to route your IP address to a different location. Or you move to a different address and tell everybody about it.

By contrast: if you start playing with protocols, then there are quite censorship resistant ideas floating around. I believe closest to what you have in mind is Freenet, but also some of the filesharing P2P networks work without central servers (torrent does not).