He didn't "find" the faucet, he just doesn't understand the difference between "found" and "founded". Or "there" and "their", for that matter. Or "that" and "who". Or the plural form of "payout".

Although I personally prefer:

The US already did, over twenty years before the Chinese, using a purpose-built anti-satellite missile. They then did it again, this time using a standard anti-ballistic missile. India is also developing such weapons, though they haven't (yet) tested any.

To solve the problem, we should make this Bitcoin satellite a manned space station. After all, it's against international law to fire upon civilians, and in any case it would cause way too much of a public outcry. So, does anyone want to volunteer to be the satellite's human shield?

This is a stupid idea. For starters it isn't how people are normally used to dealing with foreign currency (which is ideally what they should be treating Bitcoin as). When I buy something online for €10, I know that it's going to show up on my bank statement as about $12, depending on what the current exchange happens to be at the time I make my purchase. I do not expect the store to say "That'll be $12.05 exactly." only to find, on closer inspection of my bank statement, that it actually cost $12.50. Good accounting requires that exact prices be quoted in whatever currency the merchant is actually using, with exchange rates calculated by the agent performing the actual currency exchange. People expect exchange rates to fluctuate, and will be horribly confused if merchants start giving exact exchange rates when they're not actually exchanging currency at all.

Sudo does not require your password if you have already entered it recently (within the last 15 minutes, by default). This makes it a lot less annoying if you need to do several things which require root privileges.

All plants (other than legumes) require nitrogen fertiliser. Without it, they just die. But that's okay, because "organic" fertilisers contain nitrates too, the only difference is that these nitrates are naturally produced, as opposed to "artificial" nitrates, which differ in that they are artificial and therefore "bad". Yes, nitrates are technically inorganic, but so is water - does adding water to plants also somehow destroy their organic goodness?

It's not supposed to look "right", it's supposd to look usable. Having the check boxes on the right puts way too much space between the label and the check box itself, and since all check boxes look the same, the distance from the labels makes it harder to tell which check box is which. Look at how the Firefox preferences dialog does it: the buttons are on the right, the check boxes are on the left, and yet it still manages to look "right".

Yeah, I think all the other check boxes are correct.

It's a private key, not a passphrase. It's a tad too long to be used as a passphrase unless you have a very good memory. But yes, you could sit at home and keep entering private keys until you get one that someone's already using (note that the use of private keys is fundamental to how Bitcoin works, and is not limited to Armory or any other specific software). What you're missing is that it would require more time and energy than the universe contains to do so.

Organic (in the context of food)
Unless you eat rocks, all food is organic.

Natural
Again, with the strange exception of "artificial chemicals" made by mixing natural chemicals with other natural chemicals, all food is natural, even if you do eat rocks. Just don't eat rocks containing lead, asbestos, or uranium. Despite being 100% natural, these rocks are not healthy snacks.

It's not silly at all. Far from it. As has been pointed out, his mining efforts efforts are providing additional security for the Bitcoin network, and by destroying the coins he is both declining to accept the reward normally offered to those who provide this important service and increasing the value of everyone else's coins. I normally wouldn't reply to a thread such as this, but I just feel obliged to thank Coins are Gone for his selfless generosity. Well, I guess it's not selfless since he's stealing from the company to do it, but that doesn't mean he's not a hero. Like Robin Hood in a way.

A couple of minor problems:

* "Transaction fees as small as five tenthousandths of a bitcoin" is completely meaningless to someone who doesn't know what a bitcoin is or how much it's worth.
* The official bitcoin client won't run on any Macintosh that was produced while Apple still had its stupid rainbow logo.

Some random feedback on 0.81-beta:

* In left-to-right languages such as English, check boxes (such as those in the Preference dialog) are supposed to be to the left of the label, not the right, and vice-versa for right-to-left languages.
* The default date format (%Y-%b-%d %I:%M%p) isn't my system default date format (ISO 8601), and isn't even a standard date format used anywhere in the world. Where'd this weird date format come from? Also, for the example date, it's generally recommended for the time to be after 12:59 PM, to make it easier to differentiate between 12- and 24-hour time.
* It looks like I didn't fully test the light-on-dark colour scheme handling earlier: unconfirmed transactions in the ledger are displayed in black on a dark background. I understand reducing the contrast for unconfirmed transactions, but I think you overdid it slightly.

Not if the sender used an e-wallet service and thus the receiver has no idea what address to send the refund to.

Let's see now...

Low quality stock photography of random women - Check
No HTTPS - Check
No Contact Info - Check
TOS saying "we are not liable for anything" - Check
Affiliate site has all of the above problems plus fake TRUSTe and BBB seals - Check

Yeah, I think we're done here.

Not hard at all. In fact, I think a few (possibly even most) keyloggers take a screenshot on every mouseclick for exactly this reason. The reason not to implement a randomly-changing on-screen keyboard is that it's damn annoying and doesn't really provide much (if any) improved security, and in fact will probably reduce security substantially as it encourages users to use short passwords, due to how damn annoying it is to click a huge number of buttons when the buttons keep shifting positions randomly every time you click one.

Seriously, security features that are annoying are as bad as no security at all because users will actively try to avoid using them properly: people would rather be insecure than annoyed. They may not admit it, but it's the truth. All security features must be designed with non-annoyingness in mind.

51% is not needed to do a double-spend. All you have to do is send one transaction, then send another transaction to a different address using the same inputs (the standard client does not allow you to do this, but it is possible with a modified client). Only one of the two transactions can possibly be accepted as valid, and once one of those transactions is confirmed, the other one is invalid and will never be confirmed, and anyone who was counting on that transaction being valid is out of luck. This is why you should always wait for transactions to be confirmed before assuming the money is yours. A 51% attack is only required to take back transactions which have actually been confirmed.

Satoshi Dice uses a neat trick to avoid the problem of double-spending: it sends back the coins you originally sent as part of the payout. Since it is not possible to invalidate only part of a transaction, if your original bet is later invalidated due to it being a double-spend, your whole payout is also invalidated.

You seem to have a very strange idea of how prices work. Exchanges do not set their "own" prices, the users set prices for themselves. The exchange site has a matching engine which searches all the orders placed by the users, and if finds someone willing to sell for a price that someone else is willing to buy at, it makes the trade. A trade will not happen unless the price is agreeable to both the buyer and the seller, and this is true for all transactions, not just those that take place on exchanges. No other price is "real" or "fair".

There is not, and never will be.

Correct. Bitcoin uses digital signatures (an application of public-key cryptography) to authorise transactions. A bitcoin address consists of a hash of a public key, to which the owner of that address holds the corresponding private key. Transactions are signed using the private key and the public key is published on the block chain, allowing anyone to verify that the transaction was indeed created by someone with access to the correct private key and that the transaction was not been modified by anyone else.

Barring a hitherto unkown breakthrough in cryptanalysis, brute force is the only way. In order to spend coins from a particular address, it would be neccessary to find a private key whose corresponding public key has the same hash as the bitcoin address. Bitcoin keys are 256-bit ECDSA and the address hash is 160-bit RIPEMD-160, so the weak link is the hash. It would take 2^160 operations to brute force, which is totally infeasible.

No, such an attack would be able to steal all coins from a particular address, regardless of how many transactions that address was used for. Using multiple addresses probably won't help either, since the only way this attack is even remotely possible is through some breakthrough in cryptanalysis, which would make all bitcoin addresses (not to mention all online banking) vulnerable. You've got bigger problems than your bitcoins if that ever happens.

Not easily enough. What we really need is for a major currency exchanger like Travelex to accept bitcoins. Once that happens, we'll finally be able to achieve our goal of world domination (or at least, domination of the world currency exchange and remittance markets).

You might as well ask, what's the point of using untraceable cash if you're just going to put it in an easily traceable bank account? The answer is the same in both cases: bitcoins and cash are both more convenient than other ways of moving money around. No exorbitant fees, no daily withdrawal limits, no risk of chargebacks, no risk of identity theft, no waiting forever for transactions to clear, etc. The potential for anonymity is just a side benefit, which not everybody wants or needs to take advantage of. They can use bitcoins any way they want for any reasons they want, regardless of what other people think. That is the way it is supposed to be.