It's funny how this subject shows real faces of some highly respected individuals on this forum, well maybe they are just afraid to express freely on this matter and that's understandable.
Anyways, according to this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108743.0) they have failed the test.

Quite the opposite actually - it's surprising that after 11 years there are still people buying into "official story".
The voting on youtube "debunking" video that you posted supports the point.

Here, I found it! At 3:45 in the video above it explains everything!
"Considering that news agencies around the world were reporting that it was on fire and in danger of collapse, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone when World Trade Center 7 collapsed as a result of fire"

So it collapsed because the "news agencies" were saying it would. Nice "debunking"!
When "news agencies" get to work, laws of physics don't need to apply anymore...

Yep! I believe it will be done eventually.
Bitcoin is a perfect tool for direct democracy where people vote for laws with hash-power.
But that should happen when majority of the population starts participating.

On a technical side, I guess the blockchain would include a hash of "the law", while the actual text will be stored somewhere else. Everybody could verify that the text hashes to the value in blockchain.
We would also need some rules on what to do if multiple different hashes get voted in (in different blocks of course).
Maybe select the winner based on the last 1000 blocks or something similar. Interesting times ahead

At this point it would be hard to make anything official, because frankly nobody knows what bitcoins really are.
The only thing that exists in any tangible form is a distributed database with transactions which represent transfer of ownership of bitcoins, but it doesn't specify what they are and where they are stored.

There is simply a cryptographically signed record that says "address A now owns X", technically it doesn't even mention bitcoins at all so we can call them whatever we want and interpret them however we see fit.

EDIT: I guess that Finnish Central Bank representative's statement was simply an acknowledgement of the fact that there is nothing in the current laws that would prohibit individuals to have private keys and have the ability to send and receive specifically formatted messages signed with those keys and eventually stored in a public database.
That's the gist of Bitcoin. Any legislation aiming to prohibit that would need to deny any individual the ability to have privacy and keep secrets. That won't go easy.

Here is the video of a TV program aired to 500,000 citizens on a national YLE2 channel, where Finnish Central Bank representative admits that Bitcoins are perfectly legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjo_w9gPch0
It's in Finnish though.

Here is the related thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100924.0

It's easy to judge the old man when the outcome is already known. While choosing his defense tactics he certainly didn't know whether he would survive the attack or not, nobody would know that. He chose the one he thought would give him a better chance and he won. So yes, there is something to celebrate here - the elderly home owner came out alive and the intruder is dead.

Now if you live in the society where violent crimes and home intrusions are unheard of then, yes, using deadly weapon wouldn't be the first thing you do, you probably wouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
But unfortunately we are not there yet, especially taking into account that the intrusion in question wasn't the first one, the old man's actions are justified.

The major problem is that most people are simply unaware of the new systems that are coming.
People using the old system don't necessarily like it, but they simply don't know what else they can do.

Bitcoin in that regard represents the idea of the new system, even though this particular implementation might not be the final solution. Once they get the idea, they'll be able to choose and decide which one of the new systems suits them best.

Bitcoin won't go away because of Pirate, but it can't prevent other systems from cropping up.
If majority of people consider that one person having 2.5% of coins in possession in one system is a negative thing then that system will get less weight within the set of similar systems where the distribution of coins is more fair.
Eventually the value of that particular coin will reflect that and the natural balance will be established.

Scammers will educate people that the new system is unlike the old one and the rules are quite a bit different.
That education process is now ongoing, and no, it won't destroy Bitcoin
If anything, the educated ones will move to Litecoin and won't repeat their mistakes again.
This process might need a few more iterations, but we will get there eventually.

"Established order" prints fake money to fund wars across the globe to further extend its fake financial hegemony.
Bitcoin was not created to peacefully co-exist with established order, it was designed to take it down and IT WILL.

If you are in it for a small day-to-day profit it's fine, but it's not what Bitcoin is about, you might want to re-read what Satoshi wrote in the genesis block to get the idea.

The structure of society will eventually reflect the collective consciousness of the people participating in it.
As more and more people shift towards non-aggression, aggressors will have a hard time surviving in that environment at least economically if not physically. Use of force as self-defense is not considered an aggression.

Again one cannot impose one particular system on people over another - it's always a reflection.
One can think that the current system is imposed on us against our will, but as long as majority of people allows it to happen that's what we'll have. You cannot force people to follow NAP if they like to express themselves violently or tolerate aggression to others.

On a positive note, what we're seeing now is a shift in consciousness towards non-violence.
The wars fought by governments are largely disapproved by population, so the old system is running on a borrowed time and is destined to collapse giving way to the new one.
What that will be - we will see in time.

Since most of the code was inherited from Bitcoin in the latest release I have a few questions to coblee:
1) Does Litecoin's multisig address also start with '3' making it indistinguishable from Bitcoin?
2) What was the date chosen for BIP16/BIP30 switchover?
3) Was the alert master key changed from Bitcoin and who has control of that for Litecoin?
EDIT (while I still remember):
4) How URIs are handled? Does the client hook up to launch on Bitcoin URI address or was that changed to Litecoin?

Yeah, US has nice "laws" these days...

Some people don't understand that you can't build the system which will challenge the status quo and ask status quo's permission to do that at the same time

Bitinstant didn't break the law.
We will write the laws too

I'm with Bitinstant on this one.
That's the spirit of Bitcoin - we are building a disruptive technology which will take over the world.
We aim at no less, so why be so shy about it?
Winners will write the history.

Haha, it could be... but if people suddenly want more coins than the original protocol implies, why not use Litecoin! There are still plenty of coins available for mining (about 7/8 of the total) and adoption-wise it will take just one major merchant processor (like Bit-Pay) to take it on board to make all the difference. </offtopic>
Anyways, November seems like an interesting time for Bitcoin

Now that they've acquired a good portion of Bitcoin economy (Pirate was a CIA agent) they can announce support for it => profit!

I'm not sure that recognizing bitcoins as X is such a great idea. One of the strong points of Bitcoin is that bitcoins themselves don't actually exist! All that does exist is a transaction record (cryptographically signed message) that says address A now owns Y bitcoins, but it doesn't say what they are or where they are stored.

That's why it was deemed hard to put Bitcoin into any existing legal framework and thus put pressure on it.
It would be interesting to see how bitcoins are defined from legal point of view.