I don't have any better ideas for an offchain wallet; I use electrum as my wallet, but it's a desktop wallet.

There's also the blockchain wallet, which is a website wallet.

I thought it was an interesting concept but I'm waiting for it to gain more traction before giving it a whirl; I definitely wouldn't use it to store my BTC in, but the idea of offline transactions would certainly allow speedier transfers.  My biggest concern is security, as we've seen plenty of other wallet sites result in a loss of BTC for its users.

Yes, this seems to be what to expect when government is left in the hands of the few; a focus of power is a focus of self-interest.

I think you got he and I mixed up

Some people have missed the point; the Internet is anarchy for its various usages do not officially respond to any higher order (and often reject to the idea of it, despite certain websites being pressured with political might), and are not forced to subject themselves as any lower order.  This website, even if it had massive regulation and hard, lengthy rules, would still be libertarian, as are all websites, because you are not forced to use it nor will such regulations follow you in your private life; it is completely voluntary.

If you're complaining about libertopia, you're complaining about the Internet as a whole...while wanting to be on it.  If it's so bad, leave; you can do that in libertarian communities.

I just played a brilliant game where government had control over these things and business and more, where you work as the guy who sees who's allowed in the community or not at a national checkpoint, check it out: Papers, Please

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

You would have to mine altcoins and short them.  It's not worth the hassle if you ask me; you'd be better off working as you normally would and trading that cash for BTC directly.

Are you currently putting more bitcoin into programs to help people better understand Bitcoin financing?

From an anarchist's point of view (I pray you don't mind), the only purpose of government is to protect our most important rights, i.e. law & justice.  These are dictated by the law of reciprocal, e.g. "If you do this to me, you will receive similar treatment", which is essentially the golden rule.  The libertarian viewpoint is the non-aggression principle, which is an aggregate of "Do not kill", "Do not steal", "Do not rape", and anything else which can be defined as aggression.  Combining the two, you get a set of clear and concise laws where virtue is at the very core of society; the methods that these laws are protected are unrelated to any central source of power, thus placing government as a matter in the hands of every individual to protect; my philosophy is, nobody will ever reliably and consistently place your best interest in mind but you.

The trouble with giving a central source of power monopolies over certain services, especially in light of military, money and law-creation, is that they then use that power to their own advantage.  Once you have control of a people's defense systems, control over the flow of wealth, and can define what is just and what is not (even if unethical), you can then increase your control over people and divert their energy into empire building and thus, conquest.

Anyhow, when government is not allowed to have monopolies over these things, it is up to the market to provide these things.  It is a common view that the entire reason the state provides its services is because the private sector refuses to do so.  Bitcoin shows us that currencies don't have to be controlled by government; they can function on their own, powered by individuals.  Then again, gold showed this to us as well but that's a long story.  I believe, if people want it, they will pay for it, and people definitely want military to protect them, and just as well would like local law protection to ensure their daily lives go unhampered by crime.  Since people already pay for these things through taxation, it should follow they would also want these things voluntarily.  By doing this, we keep military and police in the hands of the individual, thereby removing the fear of these two entities becoming corrupt and fighting causes that are immoral, such as wars in the middle east and whatnot, but instead focused on protecting people from those who are breaking the law by breaking what is widely considered as ethical behavior, such as not murdering innocent people.  In the same vein, if people want knowledge of substances, they would fund agencies who compete to provide the most honest and truthful assessments of these items, and I believe we all want this; for example, nobody is mandated to have Internet (AFAIK) and yet a huge amount of us couldn't live without it.  Likewise, there are certain things we enjoy in this world that we couldn't live without and would be fine with spending the cash to make it happen.  I can't imagine a world where people want a product or service with there being nobody who says "Hey, I can make some money doing this!"

But aside from all that, I feel that any reduction of our currently bloated government is a step in the right direction.

Yes; I believe the best method to Christianity is Christ's method; for example, Christ did not necessarily proselytize Judaism, though he was Jewish.  Christ did not want to push any religion specifically on people; his method was to simply show, through his actions, why his methods were beneficial and more preferable to the alternatives, which were essentially immorality and hypocrisy.  I do find that debating can help, for it helps us to understand our own beliefs, but the point of a debate is never to be right or wrong, or to be the winner, but for each to leave the debate with a better understanding of themselves and the other; a debate should always be thought of as a win-win situation, which is why I tend to avoid certain people who get into arguments only to put the other person down as "wrong", which does happen and I'm sure you know what it feels to be against those types.

So long as you practice Christ's methods, you will naturally accrue a following to his teachings; merely speaking of him and his ways is not enough for most people, and it's something I very much disagree with in the evangelists, who can often be overbearing or sometimes holier-than-thou in their methodology, as though Christianity is the only option with all other religions as wrong; I don't believe this to be true, for we cannot know which religion is true or if any are the best ways to live, all we can do is practice and see, for ourselves, if the practice is good or not.  This is enormously important for all those religious; it matters not how much a person follows a religion if they do not practice what they preach, and this seems to be the majority, or in the very least the ones who stick out most within the major religions, which has caused negative views and the infamous saying, "I love God; It's His fan club I can't stand" among many followers

As Gandhi may or may not have said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Troll champion, reporting for duty.

If people will allow themselves to be scammed, then I have no sympathy for them; it is in your every interest and your complete burden to ensure the company you're buying from is competent and just.  There are no guarantees, no matter who you're trading with.

The ads, if anything, should be a black hole of money for BFL if people actually did this and consequently refused to buy from them, and I hope the losses that ensue for failing to be cautious encourages them to be so.  This is what you get in a free market; you have to be able to filter the good from the bad, and if BFL is not a good company to buy from (as has been stated numerous times in the Bitcoin community), then the ads should not be a bother to the informed person.  The ads will thus naturally go away once BFL no longer profits from them; the fact that they're still there says there's still changes to be made in the community's behavior.

This seems right; he was quick to snap at anyone he objected to, such as being asked to correct the date format and things of that nature.  I wouldn't have guessed him to be so hateful, however; this is supremacist level evil.  There's never a good time to mention that people of ethnicity X deserve to die, for it's never true.

I'm down with that, so long as it's a libertarian left and right.

Actually, style of life is the biggest factor in deciding whether a random change in DNA will prove beneficial to the organism or not.  That is precisely what is being asserted; the organisms living today aren't the strongest or the smartest, they're only the most adaptable.  Of course evolution doesn't care about any of that because evolution is not an intelligent higher power.

They know what they want but they're going about getting it all the wrong ways; there's no use overthrowing the state just to install another one.

Because that's where we are; evolution is studied through how animals came to be in their current forms by running backwards through the timeline, from the concrete, observable now to the increasingly mysterious past.  If you ask anyone to explain the beginning of life, they will only ever give you theories; nobody was around to see it and no records exist of its happening, so all we have is our imagination and reasoning.

Evolution is not an intentional process, so there is no optimization; we can see this happening because many species have vestigial parts, such as blind mole rats with eyes, women with hymens, whales with hind leg bones.  The only thing animals do is adapt, and those animals which couldn't adapt we don't know about or are now extinct, i.e. dinosaurs and the dodo bird.  So long as that animal has adapted enough to survive in its area, the species thrives and continues to make more of itself, even with the parts it's no longer using.

If we can assume these creatures are placed on earth by God, a more interesting question is why He decided to give these animals parts they weren't going to use.  I don't believe an omnipotent God is so incompetent, nor will we find a valid reason as to why this can somehow be beneficial to the animal, which leads us to believe God has an odd sense of humor or He wasn't behind this at all.  I certainly don't see women cheering over their hymens, anyway, though it is beneficial in other animals who need that extra protection in the wild.

The problem is when this regulation is out of the hands of the individual, for it assumes the higher power is always going to have the individual's best interests in mind.  The free market will be regulated, because it is involved with people who are capable of such feats; the difference between the libertarian market and the authoritarian market is who regulates it: you, or the people who attempt to represent you.

Understand the argument you're against before making people repeat themselves, please.

Bitcoin's a new technology and not many businesses yet know or trust it.  You'll have to be a bitcoin evangelist and spread the word if you want the people in your area to be familiar with it