It would be nice if I could buy a preconfigured FPGA or ASIC box, already set up with p2pool. Just plug it into the AC and LAN (or USB?), open 192.168.x.x in a web browser, enter your address, and watch the coins trickle in.

I don't know much about computer hardware, but I've got "free" electricity and would like some anonymous bitcoins.

I live in downtown LA, and would be interested too.

Inflation and confiscation would both be protocol changes, so it would takes months to implement. Don't you remember the shitstorm over P2SH, a feature that everyone agreed was important but only disagreed on technical details? No way are 51% of miners updating to a new patch overnight.

Client-based tricks might work on people who auto-update the Satoshi client straight from the dev team and always leave it running, but they're a minority of the total network. Personally I only use the Satoshi client for my long-term storage and rarely start it up. Even with my Satoshi client I don't update directly from github, but instead use the Ubuntu PPA.

I hate to admit it, but I'd probably inadvertantly read your condemnation of the new patch on this forum before I even ran it. So, ummm... thanks for being so loud?

(Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but I've met no shortage of people like this in real life.)

I am ALWAYS ranting about whatever amazing new computer program strikes my fancy. Lately it's been p2p financial software, and all of a sudden I'm pushing a Ponzi scheme?

There's just no winning with you folks. If I don't hold bitcoins, then I'm a hypocrite who implicitly acknowledges bitcoin's massive risk. If I do hold them, then I'm a hoarder who exemplifies what's wrong with deflation.

I'll spend my bitcoins whenever and wherever I want, taking into account my long-term assessment of their worth. Until then, I'll continue to talk it up, just like Ripple, Open Transactions, Linux, adblock, Bittorrent, Tor, and everything else I think is cool. Please excuse how I relentlessly promote these eeeevil schemes. If anything, I'm doing you a favor by making your coins worth more and letting you buy the things you want before I get mine.

Everyone is happy to rant about what they think is wrong with the economy. But when I accept a financial risk in order to actually DO something about it, I become as bad as the bankers they revile. Apparently the only thing I'm allowed to do is stew for four years and then vote for a lesser evil. No thanks, I want something to actually change, even if it means pissing off people who feel qualified to tell me what I should want.

TL;DR: no.

Is it that hard to imagine there's no countries?

Based on the comments, it's volatility and lack of adoption. Meaning they're still right if Bitcoin ever becomes widespread, since the problems they pointed out have been addressed.

Bear in mind that for all the armchair economists on Slashdot... they still use that insane groupthink-o-matic comment karma system.

I don't know any gun owners who do. Do any gun owners posting/lurking here have liability insurance? Are there any statistics on this?

Having thought for a couple days about the points raised here, I retract my "compulsory insurance" suggestion, and am leaning towards simple restitution.

1. It's not aggression to forego insurance, so I can't argue morality.
2. The people I want to stop wouldn't be stopped, so I can't argue efficiency/effectiveness.

So why don't more gun owners buy liability insurance right now? It seems like the rational thing to do. (I don't own any guns myself)

Is it aggression to sell a gun to someone who later uses that gun for aggression? If so, does this transfer all the way down - should iron miners be held accountable for selling to steel mills who sell to gun manufacturers who sell to gun dealers?

Because there is a risk associated with driving, so instead of going to a 100% certain slaughter, you'd be going to an x% certain slaughter. But if you are biking/walking then the exercise helps, so my hat's off to you. Way to be more consistent than I had cynically imagined!

But your unwillingness to die to save others (non-emergency) - no offense - sounds kinda selfish. What about you is so much more valuable than 100 other people? And when isn't it a crisis? People are dying right now.

What if I take the dollar value out of it? If I'm willing to die to save 100 people, does that also invalidate my opinion?

I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you drive to work? To me that seems like much the same thing, but to a lesser extent; you're accepting several micromorts in exchange for money.

Maybe not, I just made a rough estimate. As the offer goes up, the chances of my accepting it approach 100%. So for $100 billion I would almost certainly do it, and $5 million almost certainly not. If it's the number itself that bothers you, and not the fact that there IS a number, then don't worry too much about it - I haven't calculated anything or thought too hard about the value.

I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?

I'd like to say yes, but to be honest I'd think long and hard about that number if I got a serious offer.

How would AnCap deter jihadists from acquiring nukes? Or anyone else who would value the nuke more than their own lives? Restitution is capped at one's lifetime income.

As of this moment, I'd estimate about $10 million USD. That is to say, if my death would leave that much to my loved ones and favorite charities, their sadness would be outweighed by hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives saved. My wife would never work or go without health care again. There are things more important than me.

Do you drive to work? Do you sometimes go a long time without exercise, enough sleep, or a checkup with the doctor?

There's no such thing as a 100% safe anything, particularly nuclear bombs. However, not allowing anyone but large governments access seems unfair and dangerous. So I think keeping them from either no one or everyone is unreasonable, and a moderate solution is needed.

One good idea I saw before was to simply require full liability insurance for weapons. If your nuke goes off for whatever reason and kills innocents, you are required to pay restitution to their next of kin. That way we can buy mining nukes, but crazy idiots can't just collect them willy nilly. This policy would nicely scale down too, providing arms more cheaply to people who have taken a gun safety course. Regulations might reduce the risk of accident, but WHEN one happens without restitution it's still unjust.

This libility insurance requirement would have to go all the way down the supply chain as well. I'd imagine this could work in the context of either a state or anarchy. Thoughts?

You can back up your wallet to protect against data loss.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=17240.0

Whoever says such things is a fool.
First of all, for better or worse Litcoin isn't going anywhere. Even if it becomes pointless due to GPU mining, some people will still run it for fun. Same goes for most other coins if they become obsolete.
Second, everyone could just sell Apple stock and buy Microsoft, leaving Apple investors broke. Except they do things differently, and each fills a niche. If you don't want to trade things devoid of intrinsic value that anyone can drop and only represent economic activity, don't trade stocks either. Stocks must be a scam.

One minor note: if/when the block reward is too low and we risk a tragedy of the commons, we can pay for work using assurance contracts.

[detailed example]
So let's say I run a business that saves money by using Bitcoin, or at least hold some Bitcoins. I want a higher difficulty. I can buy "insurance" that the difficulty will be over X, so I get paid if difficulty is low. Miners would be on the other side of these contracts, getting paid if difficulty is high. And bear in mind that we could use PPCoin, Litecoin, or whatever for these contracts in case you're worried that a 51%-induced Bitcoin collapse would make your payout worthless.
[/detailed example]
I suspect (but can't back up) that this:
* Could recover from a 51% attack and re-establish a chain
* Would be cheaper for users than present-day coinbase inflation

We've got some time to develop these secondary markets as the subsidy decreases. IMHO the Coasian provision of public goods is the next big thing for cryptocurrency; it doesn't stop at currency-related problems.