On communism.
Marx also expected communism to result in a stateless world, and the withering away of the state, as people worked toward a common good without coercion, and that the state would disappear out of obsolescence, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
Seems naive today, but that was his idea.

Then the presumption is that at least some of it is ill-gotten, and it may be up to the defendant to show otherwise if there is probable cause for indictment and some evidence against them.

I wonder if my kid would get in trouble if he traded his World of Warcraft gold through an intermediary so that he could move his character from one server to another.

Do it, and those that can come, will.

There is quite a bit reclaimed gold as well from industrial uses.
Those old computer components have a bit here and there.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-lbs-5-oz-of-computer-scrap-for-gold-recovery-/300915675630

I suppose a pure utilitarian philosopher could suggest that the only values that exist are use values and that nothing is intrinsic, but those folks are pretty rare these days.

Capital withheld from those that might use it is sensible in the absence of mutual agreement.
I am happy to provide capital to those that use it well for our mutual benefit, and for some meaningful benefit for others.  
I am not so happy when forced to yield it to others by threat.  
This unhappiness is coupled with a sadness in the notion that what I have built is likely to be unappreciated by those that have taken it from me.  

Today, Downtown LA?
Do you know if the location has WiFi?  I know they have beer.

Consider the alternative I mentioned.

1) You deposit money into someone's bank account.
2) They send you bitcoin.
or reverse the order if you like, or use escrow.

For such a small transaction, you might also easily find someone who has built some trust so that you will feel ok to trade with them.
Offering paypal is not much of an offer.

Someone claimed on another thread that you can give "gifts" on paypal that are not reversible.  I don't know how that works, but that might be more trustworthy if you can do that.

Yes, though certainly Zarathustra was jesting, I suspect the day is just as long for them as it is for us.
On the broader point, being less busy/productive/active does not seem as much a virtue as might be their own happiness. 
For my own happiness, I enjoy doing things and not being idle so Biomech's activity is more attractive than the unbusy foresters, though I respect their choice and the choice of any that would join them in that unbusiness.

It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.

IF bitcoin achieves a notable measure of success... then by the mechanism you describe above (reducing dependence, et al) we may also serve to AVOID the collapse of the state by lessening its burden, not just prepare for it.  For myself, that would be a very acceptable outcome, and even preferable.  I don't carry any ideal political agenda of what makes for a perfect society, but I would be very happy to discover myself living in a better one, and Bitcoin is hopefully one very small step toward effecting that.  By increasing personal liberty, entering the marketplace of monetary choice with a viable offering suitable for our new world, and by playing well with others.

So by succeeding with Bitcoin, we are not (necessarily) deconstructing the state, but perhaps increasing the resilience of our society and its economy, which may have the effect of saving the state as much as deconstructing it (for example, by allowing it find a more manageable size).  Whether this happens or not is far outside the scope of influence we are likely to have, but either way, Bitcoin provides many social goods.

Consider the example of the USA, it tends to become more like the things that challenge it.  When Communism is its big threat, it adopts more communism; when terrorism is the threat, it adopts more terrorism.  So if personal liberty is ever perceived as such a threat, perhaps it will simply adopt more liberty?  We can not predict the outcome, but our influence on it seems very positive.

Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.

You missed the point, doesn't matter whether you go first or not, Paypal is broken for trust free anonymous transactions for a virtual currency that violates its terms of service... 
If you really want to trade, you need to offer something folks will be likely to accept.

Otherwise you risk being seen as someone that scams newbies.

Even though the amount is close to zero, Paypal is reversible, so folks will be concerned that even if you go first by a week, and then they send the non-reversible Bitcoins that as soon as you  receive them you can reverse the Paypal payment, especially if you are anonymous and have no risk.

However, if you want to deposit your money in someone's bank account rather than through Paypal, they might be more inclined to send you Bitcoins. 

Perhaps distinguishing between utility value and intrinsic value might serve us. 
Can any software have value that is intrinsic or must all its value be use based?
For value to be intrinsic, it ought come from the thing itself.

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Thank you for sharing your understanding of these terms.  I would be more likely to use the word "communist", or "socialist" society to describe common property social systems, and to use "collectivist" to refer to group decision making and social cohesion irrespective of property rights, though I respect that collectivism may engender the former (or not).  For example, I would view Japan (especially the older generation) a collectivist but not communist and only somewhat socialist society.

My view of Bitcoin is also more like a group of philosophically and technically savvy vanguard taking steps to provide a more resilient alternative for commercial interactions more suitable to the digital age.  It does not seem any more overtly political than something like twitter or Facebook, which could certainly be used for subversive activities but are by no means dedicated toward it beyond the individual actions of those that employ the technology, so I agree that it has that potential.

Are anarchism and collectivism exclusive?
My understanding of collectivism is simply that people work together, depend on each other, help each other, trade, interact, cooperate, etc.
My understanding of anarchy is that there is no use for a perpetual governing body.
Not that I see myself as any of these -isms, so I welcome learning if your understandings of these terms are different.  It seems there may be many definitions of the labels you are using.

I don't know that Bitcoin is in any way subversive in and of itself.   It seems more of a backstop that provides economic resilience in case of the failure of that which all too-big-to-fail failures are aggregated, fiat currencies.  Getting it to a point of full utility in advance of any such failure is a collectivist endeavor by its very nature so perhaps it would be surprising to find non-collectivist subversives in abundance in this forum, would it not?

More likely I imagine that the mission you maintain as your own (ending economies) will not ever be complete, and thus Bitcoin will not become obsoleted, but I can't see tomorrow, much less such a distant future.  It would seem a de-evolution to stop collecting ourselves into cooperative groups, but to each their own.

Not having a reporting requirement category, does not mean there is no tax liability. but... 
The people in this forum are likely in every different tax situation imaginable.  So...
Don't take advice from this forum, get it from your accountant/lawyer who understands your situation and jurisdiction.

There are challenges with reasonableness and enforceability, if FINcen can't manage both, they will need to keep working on refining the rule.  Thank you for providing them some guidance on their guidance.  Helping them figure this out with some sense of sanity is a work of heroism, which is going to keep accounts open and businesses operating.

Suddenly?
1) Cryptography shown to be vulnerable.
2) Technical innovation by bitcoin haters.

Less Sudden
3) persistent 51% attacks
4) Persistent legal attacks with cooperation of network providers.

Fairly slowly
5) People decide that it is more trouble than its worth.
6) Something we haven't thought of yet.

Personally, I think these are not highly likely but still they are a greater than zero chance.
Much depends on the growth of legitimate use, which is why, like Amagi, am backing the Bitcoins with precious metals, gold and silver. 
Physical may always be better for physical transactions, CryptoCurrency has the clear advantage for online transactions.

Blockchain.info is pretty easy.
I think the bigger problem is the network effect. 
If there is no one asking for your email address you don't really need one.

When people start losing sales because they don't have a bitcoin address, that will be the tipping point.