History has proven that many folks, especially the rich ones with a lot at stake, will go to great lengths to avoid paying the tax man his share.

The rich don't need Bitcoin to evade taxes.

there's also the fact that national governments reserve the right to regulate the currency trade in general, as well as security concerns that stem from the complete dearth of regulation

Well, maybe we should take that "right" away from our governments, since they seem to have been abusing it for a long time.

So until they can come up with a solution that completely solves the problem, we don't have to think about working toward solving the problem?

You can "think" about solutions as much as you want. But you can't impose global regulations on energy markets and add massive new costs to energy production unless you can show that it has a significant benefit. And you certainly shouldn't lie to people and tell them that things like energy savings and carbon taxes are going to lead to a solution when they clearly are not.

And, unfortunately, the mathematical nature of exponential emissions growth (and that is what we have) is indeed such that unless you solve the problem completely, you might as well not bother at all.

Ah, the old "it's the will of the people so it must be right" meme.

I didn't say it was "right". I'm just saying that unless you want to live in a dictatorship, you have to accept the fact that government produces bad outcomes; you don't get special dispensation to subvert government or lie to people just because you believe your cause is righteous or because you believe you have science or the "scientific consensus" on your side.

No, it is a "caricature". Caricatures take one small (and often superficial) aspect of a situation and exaggerate it.

That is exactly what people like you are doing, and you just did it again.

If you can't live with the fact that in a democracy, people frequently make choices inconsistent with what is believed to be scientific fact, then you don't accept democracy as a form of government

There have been governmentsh that atempted to make government rational and based on scientific principles, protecting the people from their own supposed scientific ignorance; governments applying scientific principles to the allocation and distribution of resources; governments reeducating people who simply refused to believe what was clearly scientifically established. Those were communist governments. Look up what happened to them.

No, the problem is that you are making a caricature out of other people's position and then claim they aren't willing to talk to you reasonably

The real problem is that none of the proposed solutions to climate change come even close to stabilizing CO2 levels; in fact, they don't even try. So there is a fundamental disconnect between what people who propose action on climate change claim to want to accomplish and what they actually propose. The current "protocols" and proposals are ineffective and amount to little more than corporate welfare and increases in foreign aid disguised as climate-related actions.

Put a proposal on the table that reduces net human carbon emissions to zero. Then we can talk about its costs and benefits and possibly decide to take action.

As you may notice, people running exit nodes are getting arrested.

It is a good bet that many of the exit nodes that exist without being bothered by police are operated and monitored by government. Tor strikes me as a big honeypot, not in the "there's a backdoor in the code" kind of way, but in a simple practical way.

some people have started to talk about Peak Uranium.

"Some people"? Uranium will only last about a century the way we use it today. If you have to be cagey about that, you really aren't informed enough to even participate in a discussion about nuclear energy.

That's why nobody builds any new reactors, except for the Chinese who are still on an expansionist course (for now.)

The Chinese are investing heavily in Thorium, not Uranium.

And even with all these, wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear power today

They are only "cheaper" if you neglect storage, distribution, and environmental costs. In practice, satisfying our energy needs through solar energy is a lot harder and more expensive than through nuclear. Solar also produces a lot more greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing.

The US military probably has funded the development of many technologies that later became illegal or restricted, including guns, explosives, cryptography, etc.

When did France build those reactors?

They were built decades ago, when the cost of manufacturing the components of the plant was a lot higher and France was a lot poorer. If they could build nuclear power plants that today still supply 80% of France's electricity, it should be trivial for Germany or the US to do the same, with better and cheaper manufacturing technologies.

Why do you think nobody builds nuclear reactors except with huge government subsidies?

Almost all those costs are due to excessive regulations, legal costs, and extremely complex approval processes (as well as, basically, corruption: government officials like giving money to buddies in industry). France has so much nuclear power because they cut the red tape, and resulting costs and uncertainties, for approval and siting.

Governments hate anonymity and payments they can't track, and they are just itching for excuses like "drugs" and "child pornography" to push through regulations to outlaw efforts like bitcoin and tor.

their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

No, their interest is getting you to pay more out of your own pocket so they can pay less. There really is little reason why I should have to pay for your excessive consumption of health care, insurance, or government services. You want that stuff? You pay for it.

You think that's a joke, but why not? What is the Chinese government going to do to you? Have you extradited for storing anti-Marxist propaganda? Fine you for copyright violations?

If you look at, for example, the data protection laws here in Germany, the German government can get at my data even more easily than the FBI can get at data in the US. What I'm asking myself is: assuming that any government can look at data within its borders anyway, what's the best place to store my data? Good attributes for such a place are: I'm not living there, I don't want to travel there, and they aren't really on good terms with my government.

I think what the EU representatives are really saying in so many words is: "don't store your data in the US, where European governments have a harder time getting at it, store it in Europe where we can get at it easily (but you can trust us!)".

as from the outside many medium format professional SLR cameras looked virtually identical to 35mm SLRs, especially through the 70s

The Pentax 6x7 looks "virtually identical" to a 35mm SLR in the same way that Fast Bastard looks "virtually identical" to Mini Me.