Gold is not a "means of production" unless you are a goldsmith, or maybe a banker.

Perhaps.  I didn't find it funny, so I assumed that there was some element of seriousness.

Both fascism and communism as political ideologies would qualify as capitalist under such a definition. 

This is in line with the political defintion of "capitalism", but not the economic one, which is notablely different.

And that is exactly why I consider anarchy of any form to be an unstable political condition, and therefore not something to be strived for, as it results in the weakening of the social cohesion that comes with national identity.  I can think of no case that an archarcy (or anything close to that) survived a serious external challenge to that status quo, for no other reason than those inhabitants with the greatest resources to contribute to the collective defense often found it in their own best interests to simply pick up and vacate before the new power made good on his claims.  An anarchist state, by it's very definition, does not foster a national identity or sense of national loyality with it's citizens.  This is why they are often defacto anarchies by transitional happenstance, and not outright design.

Anarchy isn't to be strived for, not because it can't be a great society for the present inhabitants, but because the form of governance that follows is rarely better than a stable republic could have been.  This is exactly the reason that the framers of the Constitution sought to move away from the Articles of Confederation under the threat that the British Monarcy would attempt to reassert authority, which they eventually tried in the War of 1812.  That was a close call, and could have turned out completely differently if the one or more of the less affected states had declared neutrality and refused to contribute to the war effort; which is something that could have happened under the Articles.

Not a good example, since the mass hysteria around Fukushima was fueled by piss-poor journalism and a government that has a history of not being quite forward with it's own failures.

If it were ever cheaper to generate coins on rental hardware than buying them on the exchange, then people would either be doing it until the rise in difficulty negated the advantages, the price of bitcoins would fall until doing so was no longer profitable, or a combination of both.  Such a condition would be Bitcoin's version of 'backwardization' and can happen for short periods.  It has been shown that the difficulty and the market price are closely linked, and I believe that difficulty follows the total market value of solving a block.  (price * block reward)  And that difficulty will drop roughly in half when the reward cuts in half.  This would be Bitcoin's weak point.

Wait, what?

The only person on this forum who lives in a communist society is you, Nefario.  And from a technical perspective, even China isn't really communist anymore; but closer to fascist.  I.E. single party political control over an otherwise capitalist economy.

Capital is the means of production.

The threat of prosecution will certainly dampen the value, as well as the rate of spread, of Bitcoin; but will ultimately fail to destroy it.  Politicos aren't stupid, they look at these kind of things deeply before acting.  If they attempt it, they would have to know that it's a stall tactic.

Gold is not capital.  Neither is money.  Capital can be bought with either, and therefore valued in either, but money is not capital.  Capital is literally the tools and resources necessary for production of goods and services to be sold or consumed.  For example, a shovel is capital to the ditchdigger, but not to the accountant; whereas a calculator is capital to the accountant, but not the ditchdigger.

Bitcoins are currency, and don't even meet the bar for a commodity money, such as silver and gold do.  Bitcoins can never be capital, even though capital can be valued in bitcoins.

As Neil Stephenson so precisely wrote in Cryptocromicon, "Gold is not wealth, gold is the corpse of wealth."

That's the biggest example of corporatism that I have ever seen. 

How can you have outgoing transactions if your client is still bootstrapping?

Now I'm confused.

If/When a true thorium fuel cycle is established in India, thorium coins become a viable alternative because thorium isn't very dangerous and the energy content provides for the most basic of use values.  Honestly, I'd be kind of surprised if someone like the Hunt or Koch brothers don't already have thorium bullion waiting for the shift.  Thorium is radioactive, but it's half-life is so long it was only theoretical for 100+ years until it could be observed.  99% would still be here when the Sun overtook the Earth as a red giant.

The Great Substitution Wall of China?

Apparently the priesthood doesn't teach economics in seminary. 

Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words?  It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language.

Some people are easily confused.

Okay....

Done.

Now what?

Silver, copper? 

Rats and cockroaches tend to be the wild game available in prison.

Yes, Bitcoin is a self-balancing system.  Well thought out.

There has always been some group making such warnings for as long as I've been alive.