Vanity address, firstbits address and minaddress all in one.  Very sharp looking!

You are misunderstanding the privacy/fungibility issue especially with respect to static donation addresses or published static addresses of any kind.  It is not the privacy of the entity posting the static address that is the issue - by posting a static address easily tied to your identity you obviously don't care about your own personal financial privacy.  The issue at hand is the privacy of everyone who ever gives a donation to the easily identified transaction node you have created.  Now realize that since your easily identified node can be used to possibly compromise the identities of every other node that ever sends you a donation then by extrapolation every easily identifiable static transaction node reduces the overall privacy of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem.

Now, while this system wide loss of privacy is an issue in and of itself, it is the long term threat to the very fungibility of Bitcoin posed by this system wide reduction in privacy that most concerns me an others here.
  
Proper education should lead to the total demise of static addresses because properly educated people will never send BTC to any static addresses, thus making the publishing of static addresses of any kind obsolete.  In other words everyone who cares about the long term fungibility and therefore viability of this grand experiment should demand a new address for every transaction, every time.

All donation addresses should be, as you said, implemented by a widget that displays a new address every time it is hit.  All periodic payments (including and especially mining payouts) should be handled by deterministic payment address generation.  All Bitcoin users should demand a new address for every transaction.  In order to compensate for the sloppy privacy policies of others please use coinjoin or other coin mixing transactions when you must send to any static address.

[Edit:  Thinking about this donation address issue some more I think a possible solution would be to generate an xpriv/xpub key pair, create a widget based on the xpub key that displays the first Bitcoin address for the first public key in the sequence until that address receives a donation, then start displaying the Bitcoin address of the next public key in the xpub sequence, etc.  This way a new Bitcoin address is published until it gets used and once it gets used it gets retired.  The entity receiving the donations can then generate the entire private key sequence from the corresponding xpriv key when they want to spend the coins.  In the worst case a very small number of transactions would get sent to one address before the widget changes the donation address on the next page visit.]

End of PSA/rant, now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

This exact subject has been discussed dozens of time before in dozens of threads.  You might try the search function.

Darn.  Well you are left with this:

No.

I was off trying to get the link for the orphaned blocks for you.  The link is:

https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

But it appears to be broken right now.  You can probably see them through another block explorer - there are many others.

I have to go but someone else can explain the conflict resolution OR it may be time for you to just bite the bullet and read Satoshi's paper.  From what you have written and understood so far you can read it and understand it.  It is not that long and it is not that difficult.  Give it a try.

In fact blockchain.info will show both of the blocks until the conflict gets resolved, even then you can still see the orphaned blocks.  You can go check out all the orphaned blocks right now on their web site.  They also keep statistics on how often blocks get orphaned:

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Bitcoin does not use a world wide clock to tell who wins.  Two miners can get hashes that are both less than the target at more or less the same time.  They both can claim the 25 BTC at more or less the same time.  If one miner is on one side of the planet and the other one is on the other side of the planet then parts of the network will agree with miner one and parts of the network will agree with miner two.  So the conflict gets resolved but not by using a clock - because that would not work.

Once the conflict is resolved by all the nodes on the system one of the two blocks get accepted by everyone and the other one is thrown out.  The miner that gets accepted by everyone gets the block reward and fees.  The other miner gets the shaft, what we call an orphaned block.  This happens all the time.

No.  If there was then the hashing function is broken, Bitcoin is broken and every other system that uses the hashing function is broken.

I think number of zeros is confusing and is actually not even correct.

Look upon the hash as a big long number.  The target is actually another number.

Mining is this, in a nutshell:

1) Hash the block
2) Is the hash of the block less than the current target (which is just a number set by the protocol about every two weeks)
3) If yes you win, broadcast your result collect your 25 BTC
4) If no then modify the block so you will get a different result when you calculate the hash, go to step 1)

Do steps 1-4 as fast as you possibly can.

Since two miners can get two different hashes which are both less than the target you can have "ties" so there is a mechanism to break "ties"

The timestamps are not used as timestamps since they are not reliable and can be faked.

If there is a tie between two miners then the hashes produce by the two (or more) miners in the tie will always be different results but they will all need to be less than the target to be "winners"
 

There is no security difference between a full Bitcoin address and the proposed MinAddress.  MinAddress is just a way to look up the full Bitcoin address in the blockchain so, same amount of security as the Bitcoin address itself.

There is just a small loss of error checking of the address itself but if you are careful then that is minor.

I did not want to destroy more than 1 Satoshi per line of the poem.

You did!

It is not dirty but I put this message in the blockchain forever:

https://blockchain.info/tx/bf40e4a1c2546747bc800a085e7145d921a9f402aaf4040c155ff5d0df9cc999

Good point.  Carry on and good luck.

Thanks.

I am guessing you thought that little rant was serious.  It was not.  I guess it was not over the top enough to show up as sarcasm.  I will try harder next time or use sarcasm tags.

We all know that Al Gore, the father of the Internet, got a raw deal and no recognition for it.  Oh, wait, he invented the Internet, my bad.

Nice.  You joined the thread and conversation and contributed.

Then you fucking had to go an ruin your fucking post by fucking cussing and flaming people.  Oh, and fuck you.

You started it, with your title to this thread.

There is an obvious problem with someone who only has 37 posts and has only been here since August 09, 2014 starting a thead entitled "An obvious problem with Bitcoin" in a forum filled people who know more about Bitcoin in their little finger than you.

Do you see that the title of your thread is calling everyone here stupid?  Here is how you come across:

"I know next to nothing about Bitcoin, and I know you guys have been here supporting and studying this thing for years and years but come on guys how could you lame ass idiots miss such an obvious issue.  Even though I really don't know anything about Bitcoin I am way smarter than you guys so I will do you all a big favor - here is how to fix it."

That is how you came across.  That is why you rubbed people the wrong way (including me).  That is why you are being flamed.

Was that your intention?