The standard transaction is "This coin can be spent by someone who signs the transaction with the private key that matches a public key that hashes to <hash>".

To spend that, you need to provide the public key and then sign it.  Even if the signature algorithm was broken, those coins couldn't be spent, since the attacker wouldn't know the public key.  This is one of the reasons why re-using addresses is a bad idea.  Once you spend money from the address, you give away the public key.

The original transactions were "This coin can be spent by someone who signs the transactions with the private key that matches <some public key>".  If the signature algorithm is broken, then those coins can be spent by the attacker, since he would know the public key.

The updated system requires the hashing function and the signing algorithm to be broken at around the same time.

If they could solve their FIAT problem, then they wouldn't have such difficulties in acquiring bitcoin.  Of course if they could solve their FIAT problem, we wouldn't really have a need for bitcoin any longer either.

"Satoshi's early public keys"

All of Satoshi's coins are a reward for breaking the ECDSA, since they are not protected by the RIPEMD160 hash function.

Yeah but silver is still over key support at 18.

Next time we test it will we go under of not is the only realy question i have right now.

I think venmo is the biggest threat to bitcoin. If money over IP becomes prevalent without the need for bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, than the only benefit they really offer is for ideologist/criminals/economic reasons. But a lot of the added utility that we emphasize to the layman will disappear. And I ask myself, why don't we have that kiiler app yet?

That's a good idea man. I would hope that some of the other candidates will remain involved. There are some good people with a lot to contribute. Even non candidates and bitcoiners outside of the foundation should have their ideas heard and have a role in steering the board.