Cryonics is free

I'm in favour of saying true things. I feel the (current) title is slightly misleading. 

Both aldehyde fixation and liquid-nitrogen cryopreservation are techniques easy to perform, and routinely employed in ~every biology lab for cell cultures. Reversing the latter is trivial and also routine; reversing the former is not possible with current tech.

How relevant you consider this is up to you. My guess is that people intuit that with improved technology, the relative difficulty of reversing these on the macro scale would be the same.

I don't know. The brain preservation prize to preserve the connective of a large mammal was won with aldehyde-stabilization though

I don't know. 

If the aldehyde preservation method is as good as traditional cryopreservation, then this looks like a pretty glaring market inefficiency—someone should be able to swoop in and undercut the established cryo companies. 

I just don't know enough about the object level arguments to say much with confidence, but I'm a bit skeptical such a gap in the market exists. 

Who is the wealthy person?

not including the cost of stand-by, which is also a significant portion (ie. staying at your bedside in advance until you die)

I assumed this was an overstatement. A quick check shows I'm wrong: TomorrowBio offer whole body (€200k) or just brain preservation (€60k). The 'standby, stabilisation and transport' service (included in the previous costs) amount to €80k and €50k respectively. I expected it to be much less. 

That said, they still set aside €10K for long term storage of the head. I guess this means your head has a higher chance of being stored safety.

if you're alive, you can kill yourself when s-risks increases beyond your comfort point. if you're preserved, then you rely on other people to execute on those wishes

Right, but you might prefer

• living now >
• not living, no chance of revival or torture >
• not living, chance of revival later and chance of torture

It's not obvious to me that those are the same, though they might be. Either way, it's not what I was thinking of. I was considering the Bob-1 you describe vs. a Bob-2 that lives the same 40 years and doesn't have his brain frozen. It seems to me that Bob-1 (40L + 60F) is taking on a greater s-risk than Bob-2 (40L+0F).

(Of course, Bob-1 is simultaneously buying a shot at revival, which is the whole point after all. Tradeoffs are tradeoffs.)

Why is hostile low-quality resurrection almost inevitable? If you want to clone someone into an em, why not pick a living human?

Frozen people have potential brain damage and an outdated understanding of the world.

[epistemic status: low confidence. I've noodled on this subject more than once recently (courtesy of Planecrash), but not all that seriously]

The idea of resurrectors optimizing the measure of resurrect-ees isn't one I'd considered, but I'm not sure it helps. I think the Future is much more likely to be dominated by unfriendly agents than friendly ones. Friendly ones seem more likely to try to revive cryo patients, but it's still not obvious to me that rolling those dice is a good idea. Allowing permadeath amounts to giving up a low probability of a very good outcome to eliminate a high(...er) probability of a very bad outcome.

Adding quantum measure doesn't change that much, I don't think; hypothetical friendly agents can try to optimize my measure, but if they're a tiny fraction of my Future then it won't make much difference.

Adding the infinite MUH is more complicated; it implies that permadeath is probably impossible (which is frightening enough on its own), and it's not clear to me what cryo does in that case. Suppose my signing up for cryo is 5% likely to "work", and independently suppose that humanity is 1% likely to solve the aging problem before anyone I care about dies; does signing up under those conditions shift my long-run measure away from futures where I and my loved ones simply got the cure and survived, and towards futures where I'm preserved alone and go senile first? I'm not sure, but if I take MUH as given then that's the sort of choice I'm making.

I'm not sure if that weak correlation would persist at the extremes, though; when there are basic failures of execution, such as having an apparently abandoned website, I think there is some reason for concern, if only because it might indicate a shortage of resources or inactivity. An organisation's longevity and funding security are obviously of the utmost importance here, and the website doesn't fill me with confidence in that regard.

Is this unfounded? I don't know much about the company and couldn't see anything about this on the site.

Oh, based on your DM, they will still preserve and transport your brain to OregonCryo for indefinite storage for free if you can't afford it. So I wouldn't say they're no longer active. But it's still good info to know they aren't doing the storage locally anymore. Thanks for sharing.