Yes, they went to a wallet that the ESEA owned. In your wallet, you can setup numerous addresses that you can give to unique miners so you can see how many bitcoins specific miners are brining in. You can also just use a single address to have all of your bitcoins sent to. Either way, they'd all end up in the same wallet. As an example, here is the address I used when I first tried mining on a pool, you can use it to see how much I bothered to get from this specific pool.

1AiyVX1Ag87gar9E3oWb3QEziUHvDBRHax

Not sure if you can unclip it from the frame, but if so, it would fit nicely in my pocket protector. Who doesn't want to see pocket protectors make a come back? Next thing you know all manner of folks would be styling them up, looking fresh. Almost like a cultural revenge of the nerds.

Yes, you are very correct, at least as of May 13th 2012.

Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph page 5
--
...can estimate with our methodology that WikiLeaks owns at least 83 addresses, that it was involved in at least 1088 transactions, and that it had an accumulated income in all these addresses of 2605.25 BTC's.
--

Using Google Reader, I've been able to easily follow along on all SCOTUS cases for the past ~3 or 4 years, from the SCOTUSblog rss feed.

I've begun to think it is actually just one guy just trolling (poorly) for all they are worth. Either that or it has turned into a meme that encourages the the likes of 4chan /b/tards to, in their own way, declare I am Spartacus(APK), just for the lolz...

Since it is primarily the number of stream processors that drive the hash rate, my 7870 with 1280 stream processors does ~380 Mhash/s, so this new Sky 900 card with 3584 processors should be able to push ~1000 Mhash/s, considering they have near identical clock rates.

That isn't accurate. Most people mine in pools these days, with various payout models. If anyone in the pool gets the correct hash, everyone in the pool splits the reward from the block, generally split between the number of shares(accepted hashes) you were able to submit. Right now the main people making money on bitcoins are pool operators that run with fee's on the reward. I've read accounts that some of these pools, like DeepBit and Slush bring in a $1000+ a day on fees. Of course there are pools that have zero fee's, thankfully.

Using a Kill-A-Watt my computer pulls ~220 watts at the wall with the GPU under a full load. I pay $0.0845 per KWh, which works out to ~$13.50 a month to leave my computer always on mining. I have a hash rate of 480 Mhash/s. With bitcoin trading at $30, I make ~$1.10 a day, which is enough for me to break even on my electric bill in 2 weeks, with the remainder of the month as profit. Of course with it trading at $75 currently, I'm able to make a bit more. Sure it isn't great money, but it'll let me replace my video card every year. At least for now... I continue to re-evaluate, and dream of getting an ASIC.

I think your info is old, or we define 'decent' differently. A modern CPU, like an i5/i7, can do anywhere from ~5 to ~20 Mhash/s. A modern video card, like a Radeon 7870 can do ~390 Mhash/s (with the flagship models [5-7]970 all doing around 550 - 800 Mhash/s), and Nvidia the fastest they get is with GTX570 at ~140 Mhash/s. For both Radeon and Nvidia, the more shader/streamer/cores you have the faster your hash rate, but Nvidia doesn't scale up as well.

From the article it suggests that the company was able to defend against there SWAT... can anyone that is fluent in Dutch find an article on that? I've tried looking for it in english but have had no luck. Sounds like quite the story.

Still not sure why authorities didn't break out the fiber seeking backhoe to solve this problem if that company is legitimately holed up in what sounds like a minor siege.

Thanks for the additional information. I admit I had no clue on sentencing for laser pointers, and the comparison with the kids throwing rocks is very apropos.

And to think, without those first two sentences, you actually provided constructive criticism. You seem like a very knowledgeable decent person in your other posts. I'm sorry if my sentence structure made this kids actions seem less bad than what they are, but that is all part of making a persuasive argument. I just feel we as a society are very quick to lock people up, and the way the article was written suggested that he was given a harsher punishment than what the next guy would get for the same action (which is my main issue). I freely admit my stance has changed and jail does seem reasonable. I suspect my own personal biases against the criminal system make me wish we give more people the chance to stay out of the system via indentured servant levels of community service.

That's a false dichotomy. I'm not suggesting it is just fine to wield a laser. I'm even OK with giving him jail time, though I'd personally steer it towards ludicrous levels of community service, where if he failed to do X number of hours per week, he'd be found in violation of his probation and be sent to jail for the remaining time.

Many have mentioned how these devices can cause instant and permanent blindness, and now I'm more fully aware of that aspect, some jail does seem reasonable. My major objection was (and this could just be how the article was written, because I do not know what the sentencing guide lines are for the crime he committed) that the judge gave a more heavy handed sentence in order to make an example of him to others. Severity of punishment does nothing for deterrence, he should be punished, make no doubt on that, but he should be punished evenly and in the same accord any other offender of that crime would get. If 2 and 1/2 years in jail is what is set as a proper punishment, then so be it. But if guide lines for this crime say sentencing should be lesser, than we are doing a disservice not only to this kid, but to the rule of law.

At no point should the justice system try to make an example out of anyone. Law should always be dealt evenly. The severity of punishment does nothing for deterrence, the only thing that helps serve as a warning is consistent enforcement of the law. To punish one person more than others so others take notice, has never worked, and is more of a sign of seeking vengeance than rehabilitation. Additionally, those who would do bad things likely aren't studied in criminal law and past case history to know if anyone has been made an example of whatever stupid thing they are about to do, so no warning to others is ever realistically possible. Gone are the days when a small community would get together to exact a punishment on an offender, and only in those small communities could setting an example work.

I just believe we should try to bring the young back into society where they can be constructive, at least give them the chance, before sending them on to learn to be a real criminal.

Well, at that point they would be trying him for manslaughter (or worse, depending on the evidence), and the sentencing that goes with that.