Would the poster care to define the term 'liberal'?

It seems some Americans have twisted the definition. In the rest of the world economic liberalism is what American's call conservatism. Social conservatism is something like parenting. From my understanding of the terms, conservative implies content to preserve the status quo, tradition, tending not to change, and obedience to authority. Where as liberal, sharing the same root as liberty and libertarian, stands for freedom, generosity, and equal rights. Liberals rejected hereditary status, established religion, and monarchy in favour of the rule of law and fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. At what point did the term change for the negative?

Are asking those liberals defined above why they support BitCoin?

I empathize with this user's panic. I too find the client's behavior unpredictable after swapping wallets. Why should the 100MB blkindex.dat need to be removed and the 200MB blk0001.dat repopulated from the network?

It is not clear to me what is generic shared public data (block chain) and what data is specifically related to the wallet.

I use (or would like to use) multiple wallets. For example, 1. public and 2. secure/backup. However, because internet usage is very expensive and slow, I want to reuse much of the .bitcoin/database. Simply removing the wallet.dat file (bitcoin.conf keypool=1) and restarting will crash the client on close. Having a theory as to why, I removed both the addr.dat and wallet.dat files and relaunched the BitCoin client.

Are only the addr.dat and wallet.dat files associated with a particular set of address/key pairs?

Is everything else generic distributed database stuff?

Or, as I suspect, is there data related to my wallet and thus my identity still scattered among the files, such as log files and blkindex, etc.

It seems to me data related to my wallet and identity should be distinctly isolated from the public distributed database files. My wallet/identifying data should change at a minimum. In my opinion, generating new addresses for change (even when 0 BTC) is an implementation detail that should either be manual or optional. The default 100 address pool has unexpected consequences, giving a false sense of backup security until perhaps loosing all money much later in time when restoring from backup. The binary nature of the wallet keeps people from merging, spliting, and generally understanding and maintaining their own wallet. If I want to 'launder' money and increase anonymity, I should distribute coins multiple times and at random intervals, not as a predictable operation along with every transaction which decreases my ability to restore from failure.

I see no problem referring to microbitcoins and picobitcoins. Even my grandmother groks kilo, mega, giga, -liters, -meters, -bytes or bits. After all 50 BTC is already represented as:

Value: 5000000000