It is an enormous danger to any nation state. If you dont control the currency, you dont control the country.

See my earlier response. User adoption suffers tremendously as a result. This is not a scaleable solution.

If, for example, the US government can no longer entice people to its military machine via worthless US dollars, people will not enter its military machine and the US will get very angry. The only way for bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to really succeed is to eventually start removing significant value from existing fiat currencies to itself. It will cause inflation above and beyond standard inflation and people will stop wanting the currency. It is a clear and present threat to the establishment.

That is not a threat that bitcoin has anything to do with though, that is a threat all by itself.

I am being SATIRISTIC

Thanks for bringing this up OP.  Certainly a contingency plan should be on the table. 

More specifically coins are not a threat to a nation state but rather to those that control and profit from control of fiat money supply.  Indeed gold is an apt analogy, as if people started using gold as transaction currency the money masters would be no longer able to take as much value from the people as they wished.  A brief review of the banning of gold ownership is merited. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Wow, 1933 to 1974. 

Simply put, the money printing press is a valuable asset.  It earns some folks on the order of 10 trillion $ per year (good luck figuring out just how much it really makes).  That's big business so you might expect these players to try to squash something like gold hoarding or bitcoins which threaten it. 

On the other hand, these folks have another option.  They can run with the money.  Buy gold and bitcoins with their infinite dollars, and retire in comfort.  Its been a good run, and that is probably the best option on the table for them now, introduce a relatively massive inflation and run.  The cards were already on the table before Satoshi threw the aces down.

But I'm sure glad to see some improved TOR integration in the latest release anyway.     

That's the wrong answer.

We don't need an alternative to the Internet. At least not at this stage, if it becomes nessecary to fork the network that decision can be made on an individual basis.
But the opposite is happening. THEY are leaving. The Internet is here to stay, and so are we.
If this one is played out right we will inherit all the existing infrastructure (including the power over ipv4 space) in addition to the list of community networks  (google that one).

But that's not enough, the next logical step is to decentralize power and production which will be a colossal task even compared to running the whole internet.

Interesting developments, the Cyberspace declaration as well as Internet 2. So, do you think Internet 2 will be something separate from the internet, or is it just a name for a project on the internet? Also, I'm not 100% sure if the analogy to an age old declaration of independence makes sense or is valid. It seems a bit wanted, as in made to fit, and I have difficulties of understanding how a world of thought can or should be disconnected from a world of bodies. Would love to learn more though.

Concerning the topic of this thread: Btc is far from safe imo. Just look at all this crap going on with Megaupload and others, lawyers and courts acting massively against internet users who download copyrighted material. They are of the opinion that yes, thoughts and ideas can be shared with everyone in the world at no cost, but should they? They think ideas are property, and artists, inventors, businesspeople, and scientists need to be compensated because their minds cannot survive without their bodies.

Universities and other institutions,even though they use the net, are de facto separate from the internet already. Thinking about expensive subscriptions like Jstor and locked databases with scientific knowledge. If someone attacked wikipedia the "good old internet" would be left with homepages and blogs and facebook alias myspace pages only.

I don't believe the meshnet behind the freedom box is supposed to replace the internet, but rather a way to get around censorship and provide free internet access to those who can't afford it and so on. But if Big Internet decided to attack something like bitcoin, it would certainly work as a "darknet" around such censorship.

No, internet2 is mostly just a physical network, a subset of the internet, but with faster lines.  It carries same internet protocols and traffic that you are used to.  It just means that nodes on it have reliable high speed links to each other.

For example, Stanford can send data to MIT using private I2 links between universities across the country rather than handing the traffic to commercial carriers.