You can't exactly print out Bitcoins and stash them somewhere, now can you?

No, but you can export your Bitcoin wallet to external storage, erase it from your computer, stash it somewhere and it will have the same effect. Although, you're still subject to having money stolen because of vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin protocol (I don't really know why people are still using Bitcoin when Solidcoin is the superior system - less vulnerabilities).

Hah, hah. Very funny. In what way are they not money?

Note: I am not the grand parent.

First result I found on Google, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NULPfp0Zu5g

Haven't bothered validating it, but I saw plenty other results too that seemed relevant to your question.

What protections are there besides the government stepping in if the bank goes bankrupt?

The government stepping in if they 'steal' the money or do shady non-sense too. Also, even without the latter, the quoted argument is still fairly important, nothing is too big to fail.

But no BitCoin bank actually puts that in their terms of service

Based on what you define a "BitCoin bank"... First result on Google searching on this...

Bitcoin Market LLC makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, Bitcoin Market LLC does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.

According to their data, they are well used.

Bitcoinica was a brokerage and currency exchange, not a bank. There is absolutely no reason for banks with Bitcoin.

The comparison was between Bitcoinica and UK bank fraud if you read the previous posts, my comparisons are based on this.

Money stolen from individuals in the MF Global and Madoff scams have not been returned.

I've never heard of banks under those names.

The difference between traditional banks and (unregulated) BitCoin banks, is that traditional banks are usually backed by the government if they should go belly-up. Outside of that, I don't see much difference.

Not only that, but there are regulations in place to ensure protections.

It's just as illegal to steal BitCoins as it is to steal from a traditional bank account, and the bank has the same duty to reimburse the stolen money.

It doesn't actually, since a terms of service for bitcoins can be legally binding in where it says there is no warranty of services. Banks cannot do that.

To put some perspective on the Bitcoinica incidents, in 2008, the estimated UK bank fraud level was £52.5 million; that is 990.28441 times the amount of this Bitcoin theft

To put some perspective, you're protected by law with the above, not with Bitcoin. Any money stolen from individuals is certainly returned.

There are people on many sides who want Bitcoin to fail, and who will do anything to stop it from growing. The banks hate it, because it will disintermediate and replace their business. The Statists dont like it because it will defund their socialist dreams. The gold bugs loathe it because it is not gold. Keynesian journalists bristle at the fact that the money supply in Bitcoin is limited, and dream of seeing it destroyed.

I doubt the majority of people in the above industries even know what Bitcoin even is. I think you have misconceptions of grandeur, sir.

Bitcoin will continue to grow, and events like this will winnow out the weak services and strengthen the existing ones.

But why would you use Bitcoin instead of Solidcoin?

Why not?

The majority of people at one point in the UK lived in relatively poor hygiene compared to now, laws and actions were implemented to resolve this, for a very long time (many decades), the state of did not improve and many people were in violation of various laws. During this time, some people ended up prison for making available some of the worst living conditions available.

Before comparisons are brought on regarding it being incomparable, I beg to differ - As we all climb the 'Maslow' pyramid, the focus of laws on what parts of life become more relevant in today's society.

If the majority thought the law should exist, they would obey it.

Many people agreed, many people didn't agree, many people didn't know and many people didn't care regarding hygiene - Many did not obide by the laws for numerous decades. I don't see this being much different. You just happen to be one of the people who disagree in my example.

If the majority do not obey it AND they are not insane, then they do NOT support the law existing and would vote against it.

I like how you just justified some of the worst existing democracies (which are more dictatorships ran out of fear) out there.

Apparently not, or more than half would obey it.

I don't buy that logic.

If over half of the people routinely break a law and think nothing of it, how can that law be justified?

Through the need to improve ourselves?