Only time will tell.
I believe micro-payments are what will really push Bitcoin/bitcoin to mass adoption one day.
Any amount, around the world, any time, without trusted parties. That is special.
But as I have said, only time will tell.

Also, please contact them directly through email,
do not answer any emails or PMs from someone claiming to be from Virwox here.
It could be a scammer who wants your account information/details/etc.

You should contact and answer only to their official support email. support@virwox.com

Everything you are saying is correct and ultimately we won't really know what happened unless the thief/hacker/scammer/etc tells us.

But I just think it is suspect that brainwallet.org would shut down because of a brainwallet cracker program presentation?
Seems unusual to me. If the brainwallet design is sound and people use it appropriately, then you don't need to take the site down.

I'm also now thinking LiteCoinGuy might be right when he said:

That would explain why the site went down if it was not a scam site, IMO.

I think that if what you are saying is true, then it is possible that brainwallet.org was a scam site all along and was storing peoples passphrases.
Brainwallet.org then used the "brainwallet cracker presentation" as an excuse to shut down, steal all users BTC, and cover their tracks.
They can just claim now that someone has used the cracker program and your passphase wasn't safe enough.

For the record, any user making brainwallets, make sure you create them on offline computers if you are using any sites' source code.

Wow. That is a pretty big bump. Nice looking pot right there.

Good luck to the crackers as they race to the finish line (it seems).

See this as well:
    
"Why I'm releasing a brainwallet cracker at DEFCON 23"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1147035.0


OP, in light of the above link, it is possible that your "phrases" were not complex enough.

It is surprising to me that people who are knowledgeable enough about Bitcoin/bitcoin to know what a brainwallet is,
don't choose more complex phrases, especially when their bitcoins are at higher risk of theft, compared to a standard privatekey.
The "how much wood could a woodchuck..." saying or whatever it is considered could be chosen by tens of people, in theory.
With millions of users in the future, that one would pop up hundredths of times.

Good luck with your presentation.

If what you are saying and believe is true, I think we will all hear more stories like this in the coming days.
I looked at where your 22 BTC went to and if correct, seemed to have gone to a wallet that has many deposits from Chinese exchanges.
This is where I think it went to:
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/00e625faa0d1f2ae?from_address=1EKD2D7bRQykMXHRGaChMQUH36bEk8x3yU
Large amounts of BTC being moved around.

Whether your theft is related to brainwallet.org or maybe a virus/malware or etc, sadly it seems to be gone for good.

Yes, I suppose. But Satoshi seemed to have created it as an altcoin as compared to a sidechain.
Sidechains are in theory supposed to be "tethered" back into the Bitcoin Blockchain.
I do not know if Namecoin does that. If it doesn't it is an altcoin.

But to answer Ops original post, yes I guess Namecoin would be an Altcoin that will be used at that point in time.
If it facilitates a purpose that Bitcoin can not, then it fills the need.

Edit: I originally thought Satoshi Nakamoto was behind the creation of Namecoin.
        But according to the Wiki, he only thought experimented it with others in this forum.
        According to the Wiki, the creator of Namecoin is "Vinced".

Side Chains, in theory, would facilitate features the Main Chain can not (or will not).
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".

I think it is covered. It will fall under assets/properties as a catchall.
This Judge just messed up and made an incorrect decision that will be easily overturned.
The Judge just got confused with the Bitcoin System and the Plaintiff(s) didn't properly argue.

Yes, if I understand you correctly.
One. Miners will confirm any "new" transaction (the "child") that already has a prior confirmed transaction (the confirmed "parent").
Two. If you place a reasonable miner fee in the "new" transaction, miners will place your "new" transaction in the next block, in theory.
That "new" transaction must have a "confirmed" prior transaction. The "child" can not come before the "parent".
Three. If the "parent" transaction is not confirmed (maybe there was no fee attached), the "child" will not be confirmed with or without a fee.
(As a side note: CPFP is a different story and you should not expect this to work for you ever, but might be different in the future.)

Your statement about a block being invalid is different. Do not worry about invalid blocks in relation to your original question.
Invalid blocks have to do more with the (1) miners racing to publish and thus "orphaning" or (2) miners accidentally(or intentionally) forking the blockchain.
If miners did accept unconfirmed "child" over unconfirmed "parent", I think, but not sure, all other nodes and etc will reject that block immediately.
That would be a violation of the Bitcoin protocol, I believe.

I hope this answers your question.

Edits: Spelling and additions.

I would like to also add that the Plaintiff represented himself in this case. I do not know if he is a lawyer.
It is possible in other related cases, with a proper lawyer and proper argument, this decision can be contradicted.
It will not become precedent, because how do people (who had theft or other) recover losses from property or assets then?

I wrote a big complex answer, but Hexafraction beat me to it.

BTW, most Miners do not currently use CPFP. Only Eligius does. That is my understanding and could be incorrect.
The OP should not send transactions as CPFP currently. That is an implementation that is not standard today.

I'm very surprised this puzzle has wound up being so complicated.
I was guessing this would have been done within a hour after originally posting it.
Congrats on a successful and interesting puzzle so far.
Can't wait to see who wins it and what the total pot will be at that point.

It is also possible the blockchain.info app you downloaded isn't actually the "real" app.
Make sure you downloaded the wallet app from their actual site, as opposed to some other site.

Its possible that the virus/malware is programmed to work with the blockchain.info mobile wallet, and not the others.
I'm not saying it wasn't blockchain.info itself, but unlikely.
You should nevertheless scan your mobile device, just to be sure.

You most likely have a virus or malware on your mobile device.
You should scan your mobile device to be sure.

Not to be annoying, but 20 years from the date of that quote is 2030 AD.
So if by 2020 prices aren't as desired, don't worry, you got another 10 years.

No, seems that your fee was too low.
In the future, before you send your transaction,
you should check the status of the mempool,
then apply your miner fee accordingly.

This is where I check the status: https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/
This is a site which advises a fee based on mempool: https://bitcoinfees.github.io/

According to above, you should have paid around 0.0003 BTC for next block, in theory.