"We're" quite varied--for example I've lived in two of its neighbours for a significant portion of my life.  That's one of the reasons it's so obvious to me that the wealthiest 5% of the world's quest for more resources is misplaced.  To put it bluntly, if you're drastically wealthier than most people in the world will be in your lifetime, perhaps more resources are a lousy way to be satisfied.  That about sums up my disinterest with resource-oriented political ideologies.

awesome, thanks ryepdx!

I know, hey?  It's an unfortunate exploitation of a very common simplifying mechanism in human psychology.

One comment, Justmoon--I know it's too late now for the original video, but saying that computers generate bitcoins is very confusing and the most common source of the concept that bitcoins are worthless.  Please be careful to explain in the technical video that the community has defined a set amount of bitcoins which are valued on open exchanges, and that bitcoins are rewarded to miners in return for processing transactions and increasing the cryptographic security of the network--in a highly competitive market.  This is the primary thing we need to change in explaining bitcoin to the public, imho.
They've already been posted.

I didn't contribute to the bounty until afterward, but if bounty contributors are looking for a community vote, my vote is:

Yay.

We do need a technical video, but they are going to do that anyways so we should just go ahead and give them the bounty.  Is my opinion.

Can everyone please pop over there and upvote my comment that bitcoins are not "generated by computers"?

In a non-sarcastic way, I do believe you should pop out to Somalia and give it a try.  If the governments I pay taxes to ever threatened to invade a functioning anarchism you can be guaranteed I would oppose it loud and clear.  Just like my taxes are only a portion of their budget, my input is only a portion of their decision process, but I tend to be quite effective at making my input at least as proportionally significant as my taxes.  In this case because of my personal contact with you I'm pretty sure I could reach a very large audience.

Personally, I'm actually working on the internal change issue myself--it's the foundation of all functioning societies regardless of how they are organised.  But specialising is good, and experimental anarchism would provide valuable data.  Just make sure to keep excellent records!

It's your prerogative, just like the gentle nudge was mine .  I've spent a lot of time explaining to friends and family the specifics of pyramid and ponzi schemes, so I have quite a bit of empathy for people who find it hard to understand where the threat in them lies.  It's like word problems--yes, the average person can understand them if they spend long enough working at it with a patient enough tutor, but it doesn't mean they're not frustrating enough that some reasonable people will give up.
I am strongly in favour of this myself.

This is a pretty hard quote, regarding the protests in egypt:

None of which are practically accessible at this time.  But you forgot Somalia.  I'm not being ethnocentric and sarcastic--people in Somalia are just human beings trying to solve human problems.  I legitimately think anarchists should consider moving there and trying to do the same.

Care to lead the way?

I agree with you completely, my friend.

It's actually the 'contract' part of social contract that makes it impossible for me to express my views effectively by saying "It's valid" or "It's invalid."  Societies function through the commitment of their members--that's a technical description not a normative one.  Regarding the state and force, it seems to me that the primary force in question is concerning resources through taxes and fines, and concerning liberty through imprisonment or possibly conscription--let me know if I've missed something key.  The reason anarchy holds little appeal to me is that material resources are way more irrelevant to human beings than most capitalists realise; and that a great deal of internal changes in people need to precede any increase in liberty for destruction not to ensue.  My perception is that for most anarchists it is the resource angle that drives their eagerness.  The only way I could get on board with anarchy would be in a world that had addressed the internal change issue first, so I've got less than zero interest in anarchy theorists who aren't forging significant progress in that regard.

As above, I don't think either simple answer will effectively explain my position.  Perhaps you could elaborate on what you're trying to find out, what you mean by social contract, and/or what specifically about it is most pertinent here?

That is an excellent description of what bitcoin is and isn't.

I think the web of trust is a key element here.  The pot could also enforce a minimum level of trust, or there could be parallel bidding for that in the same fashion as interest rates.

@sortedmush discussion continued in Off-topic.  Any other questions about my own approach to anarchism and governments ought to be quoted and continued there.

Diverted from Governments and Bitcoin:

Contracts are a lousy way to describe societies, since the primary way people enter into them (by being born) starts them off at a place where they can't understand what they're agreeing to.  Plus, I tend to think of contracts as a lot less cut-and-dried than most capitalists do.  There's no such thing as having a human being's consent to everything.  But increasing the amount of consent required to impact someone's life generally reduces harm in a society.

Cool, will do.

Wrong bolding.  People have to commit to jurisdictions.  You're either in or out, but you can change your status without coercion (at some limited rate).  Otherwise this is just ridiculous--live in a country but then pop out if you're ever charged with a crime, etc.  Keep in mind some jurisdictions could be anarchist zones.

Awesome work comboy.  Would be good to have url added to OP for newcomers to this thread.