Are you sure your brain is getting enough oxygen?

Thanks for letting me know.  I will keep an eye out.

Then never use the address again.  Once the coins make three or four or five transactions how will the prior person know who has them.  Hell they could simply be you.  You can easily transfer coins from one address you own to another one you own just as easily as transfering it to another person. Now if you do something foolish (from an anonymity standpoint) like continually re-use the same address over and over well you are simply making a choice to give away information.

For example.  
Say you send me 10 BTC (to address A).  You know I control address A and you know right now I have 10 BTC.

You see in the blockchain a tx from A->B and later B->C and later C->D.  Who owns D?  From now till the end of time I will never use A again (I never use the same address twice, there is no need).
How many coins do I have?   Who is D?  What was the tx from B->C?  What is the relationship between the entity that controls C and the entity that controls D?  Are they controlled by the same entity?

B, C, and D could all be addresses I own and the 10 BTC is still mine.
On the other hand B, C, and D could all be different entities.
A third option is B, C, and D is all a third party.  If I deposited that 10 BTC (A->B) into MtGox the rest of the tx could simply be internal transfering by MtGox and then some future tx (D->E) is a completely unrelated customer making a withdraw from MtGox.

The blockchain alone is not sufficient to tell you anything.

What?  You do understand units are completely arbitrary.  If there were twice as many coins each coin would be worth half as much and as such the total value would still be the same.  Likewise Satoshi could have made the block reward 500,000 BTC and each BTC while low in value would make up for it in quantity.   Instead of someone being willing to sell a silver coin for ~3BTC they might ask for 30,000 BTC.  The first 10,000 BTC pizza probably would have been more like the first 100,000,000 BTC pizza.

Your claim would be like saying if only there were 9 inches in a foot instead of 12 inches then I would be 7 foot tall and thus be tall enough for the NBA. Obviously then the best basketball players wouldn't be 7ft to 8ft they would be 10ft to 11ft tall.  If the minimum wage in the US was increased to $50 billion a year would everyone have the lifestyle of a billionaire now or would milk simply cost $20B a gallon?

I think you are confused.  How does knowing a single address let you know how many coins someone has?

For example say you were involved with someone who provided this (just one I grabbed randomly from blockchain.info) as his address.

http://blockchain.info/address/1BJQDc7c9k9GGiBfoqZmnigGvEuQZCsVGP

How many Bitcoins does this person have? 

A brain dead money can pull a scam with credit/debit cards.  It takes absolutely no skill.  Hell it doesn't even need to be a stolen credit card.  "Hello [insert credit card company here], I just got my statement and I am really worried.  It looks like someone bought $10,000 worth of gift cards over the last month using it.  Please help me it must have been those hackers."

Want to buy BTC from the comfort of your house how about a bank wire?

What is with this all or nothing thinking lately?

Lets say Bitcoin "only" rises to a monetary base of $10B USD equivalent with $100B in annual transactions making it larger (in terms of transaction value) than PayPal, Western Union, MoneyGram, GreenDot, Discover and Amex combined?  Is that a failure?  OH NOES Bitcoin out of nothing, became the largest money transfer system on the planet.  Nope it didn't become the one world currency so lets pull the plug and mark it up as a failure?

Is the value of gold = combined sum of net worths of everyone in the world?  Nope?  I guess Gold as a mechanism for storing wealth has "failed" too.

No it just means you are uniformed.  128-bit, 256-bit, 512-bit (any number of bit) math can be done in software regardless of the hardware native register size.  Computations at the register size can be done faster and more efficiently but any sized values can be operated on using any sized CPU.  Bitcoind for example runs on a 32 bit machine (despite using 64bit ints for values and 256bit ints for some cryptographic functions). 

Bignum - This library performs arithmetic operations on integers of arbitrary size. It was written for use in public key cryptography, such as RSA and Diffie-Hellman.
http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/bn.html

A share is a lower difficulty hash.  It has no value in the Bitcoin network.  Pools use them as a method of record keeping.  For example if you submit 10% of the shares then you get 10% of the reward.   Traditionally shares were difficulty 1 so if difficulty for a block is 25,000,000 then a share is 25 million times easier to find and on average the pool collectively will find 25,000,000 shares for every block.  Shares can be any difficulty (remember they are worthless and simply are an arbitrary mechansim of accounting) and some pools now use higher difficulty or even variable difficulty.

Nothing about this is correct.  Nothing.  

Bitcoin uses "bigint" constructs to perform 256 bit math.  By your logic 256bit encryption is impossible on current computers because they natively don't support 256bit numbers.   It is done in software.  You can do 256bit math on an 8 bit computer.

Likewise Bitcoin uses ulong (64 bit unsigned integer) to support transaction values however it still works fine on 32 bit (and 16 bit, and in theory 8 bit) computers.  The idea that more advanced computers or some radical redesign is required is simply wrong.

Bitcoin could be hard forked to use a 128 bit integer to represent transaction values and thus up to 31 digits of precision without any radical change in code or hardware requirements.  There is absolutely no reason to do so but there is no reason to be making up stuff.

coinbase currently offers that.  Not sure how you would make it easier.  Also  currently ACH can be reversed they are harder than PayPal/CC (which a brain dead chimp can use to steal BTC) but they can be reversed.  So it isn't as easy ans plop down a sign and watch the coins roll in.  

Your site would be amazingly popular ... with scammers and you would be bankrupt within a month.

I don't know but you are the only one who asks a question, gets 3 answers, ignores them and then asks the same question again. 

Bye.

Then buy 1000 BTC now and you can be a millionaire too.   My guess is that the reason you can't explain it is because it basically boils down to "people got more stuff than me and it isn't fair".

Someone will 1000 BTC could opt to sell it now just as you could opt to buy it.  Nobody is preventing you.  Of course it is possible that BTC crashes and burns and if that is the case the person selling 1000 BTC right now made the right decision.

What are you comparing it to?  You do understand there is a CHECKSUM BUILT IN?  Take an address you own and leave off a letter, change the case of a letter, add a letter, replace a letter, etc and try to send a bitcent to it.  The client won't let you.  Keep trying.  Try a dozen, try a thousand. The addresses will all be invalid.  Even with a million attempts, the odds are <0.001% you will be able to randomly make an address which is valid.  If you want piece of mind try it right now.  Try to send bitcoins to a modified address (send a token amount like 0.01).

The odds that you could mistype or copy an address and it still end up being valid but wrong is less than 1 in 4 billion.

Neither of those are valid addresses.

However the following address is:
1Gt4PGm6HNDSMvQh3fTNfDSxE9tW26XXNv

If you tried to send fund to this address by mistake the transaction would fail because it is not a valid address
1Gt4PGm6HNBSMvQh3fTNfDSxE9tW26XXNv

The probability of mistyping and still producing a valid address is roughly one in 4 billion.   If you mistype 1 million addresses in your lifetime there is still a 99.97% chance that none of the typos in your lifetime will produce a wrong but valid address.

No an additional checksum won't "guarantee" anything. It will still have some probability based on the size of the checksum and the algorithm used to fail (especially with double transposed errors).  Worse if it requires optional or manual verification the chances of it catching anything significantly decrease.  The built in checksum provides 99.9999999767% probability that a typo will not produce a valid address.   

My guess it the OP is unaware that all Bitcoin addresses have a built in checksum.  Honestly I have never heard of anyone losing funds to a typo.  Not once.  Ever.  Plenty of reports of hacked accounts, corrupt wallet files, malware attacks, stupid mistakes (formatting computer and no backup of wallet.dat), and the occasional "oh shit I sent wrong amount" or "I sent funds to wrong (but valid) address". 

Correct.  It will work without issue.  Both will be valid transactions from the same address despite having different public keys.

Not easily.  It will require some manual modification of the wallet file.  Tools exist for the QT client but I don't know if they exist for multibit.  Even then it isn't that simple.  Nodes which have seen the original tx will see the "new" tx as an invalid double spend and refuse to relay it.  For obvious (intentional double spend) reasons there is no protocol command to "undo" a tx. Miners (depending on their memory pool rules) may drop the new tx as long as the old tx is in their memory pool.    To prevent tx from remaining in the memory pool forever, nodes will drop old unconfirmed tx from the memory pool after enough time however as long as the tx remains in the wallet file of the original client it will periodically rebroadcast it until it detects that it is in a block.

So removal requires
a) manually removing the tx from the wallet file (so client "forgets" about it)
b) waiting long enough for nodes in the network to forget the tx (because the client isn't "reminding" them of the old tx).
c) create a new spend.

If that sounds like a mess well it is and that is one of the effects of a decentralized network.   Even if you can absolutely control your client you can't guarantee the behavior of other nodes.

The "solution" is actually simpler.  There are two seperate categories.
a) truly invalid transactions (double spends, invalid signatures, malformed tx, violation of protocol rules, etc).
b) valid transactions without a fee (but not in violation of the anti-spam rules) which may be unattractive to miners.

For truly invalid transactions there is no easy fix.  The fix is don't make invalid tx.  A good client will prevent you from making invalid transactions.  Don't use patches that remove things like the anti-spam rules, and don't manually (use QT rawtransaction API) create transactions.

For valid tx with no or low fee the recipient can include that unspent output in a tx which has a fee.  Currently miners don't look "forward" to see if low/no fee tx are the input for higher fee tx but they can and likely will (especially as fees become more important).  

Example:
Address A sends coins to Address B in a tx (t1) with no fee.
Address B includes that in a tx(t2) to Address C with a fee.

A -(t1)-> B -(t2)-> C

A mining node sees that t2 is a paying tx and requires t1 an unpaid tx.  Both tx can be included in the same block but t2 can't be included without t1 (it would make the block invalid to have a tx with an unconfirmed input in it).   The mining node includes both in the same block in order to collect the tx fee.  This would be especially useful for merchants.  Merchants could combine multiple no fee tx from customers into another tx with a fee back to themselves with a fee to force encourage miners to include all the tx in the next block.

Your assumption that 99% will agree it probably naive.  99% of users haven't ever agreed on anything.  Even less controversial proposals have met significant resistance (search the forum on P2SH approval).

* Increasing the precision increases the risk of some implementation error in one or more clients that results in forks.
* Increasing the precision is likely of dubious value.  Even with a money supply where 1 BTC = $1M USD 1 satoshi = $0.01 USD.  
* As transaction fees becomes more important to Bitcoin the cost (even if small relative to other methods) of a transaction will probably make ultra-micro transactions (hundredth to thousands of US penny for example) cost prohibitive.   Realistically the min viable tx size is probably 20x to 50x the size of the minimum viable fee.  Having a precision significantly beyond the min realistic transaction size doesn't produce any value/utility. 
* The potential subsidy available from all the unminted coins is a rounding error and even at extreme valuations doesn't produce any meaningful amount of revenue for miners.  At 1 BTC = $1M USD increasing precision would make the first "zero subsidy" block worth an additional half cent (US circa 2012).  Over time even that negligible amount will decay to nothing.
* Higher precision either requires a larger (bit size) transactions (and the corresponding storage/bandwidth/cpu costs) or it will require switching to a rational decimal representation which adds complexity over the simple unsigned integer system used now.

There is no change that has zero cost or risk.   There are always costs and potential consequences.  Any hard fork core protocol change has to warrant the cost.   I see none for increased precision.  Personally I wouldn't favor a change unless there was a compelling reason.  Simply changing it for the purpose of changing it is unlikely to reach a consensus.