That's what I mean. Once a transaction gets stuck at 0 confirmations (in the block chain, but not detected by the client), deleting the block database will help, but -rescan won't.

I haven't had this happen to me, but I've read several cases of it on the forum.

I don't like these things. Posts should stand on content, not reputation. (This is why I prefer anonymous boards like 4chan.)

So then the cost will get too cheap and the network will still be unsustainable... Prices cannot be determined with a formula!

I think so. Take a look at the DNS proposal that nanotube an I made, which stores records in that area:
http://privwiki.dreamhosters.com/wiki/Bitcoin_DNS_System_Proposal

Bitcoin doesn't have a flawed economic model...

The limited rate of domain creation is a more important issue than the total number of useful domains. When demand outpaces supply, prices will quickly become uncompetitive. The price of registrations should reflect the resources that are actually being used by the network (disk space, etc.), as well as the demand for particular names. This is properly done through the free market. Prices should not be fixed according to some formula, which is what Namecoin does.

Domains are very unlike money. A fixed supply is not desirable.

Yes -- that's how it would be done. 0-value outputs are valid.

There's a limited number of domains, which is unsustainable. No formula will be able to predict demand.

It's impossible to distinguish between a valid public key and arbitrary data. Pretend that the data is a public key you're sending BTC to.

The size is pretty limited when you do this, but it's more than enough for a hash.

There aren't enough posts about it yet. I expect Namecoin to fail, anyway, since its economic model is broken.

It's entirely possible right now. You can put the hash in a standard OP_CHECKSIG output with 0 value and bypass IsStandard, even.

This doesn't solve the incentive problem. A simple timestamping chain couldn't work, for example. For these cases, it makes more sense to put the hash of a message in a Bitcoin transaction and transfer the actual message through other means.

You can only spend entire coins. Otherwise, the system would have to track balances for inputs (or addresses), which would add a lot of complexity and probably break some things.

AES is still vulnerable. It's a problem with key exchange. During the initial handshake, the session key is generated by hashing the pre-shared key concatenated with a random number that is transmitted from the AP to the client unencrypted. Anyone who intercepts the random number can generate the session key if they also have the pre-shared key.

EFF proposes doing the key exchange using public-key cryptography, which would be secure as long as you know the AP's public key. If you don't know the AP's public key, then it's not any more secure.

You were breaking a 32.29 BTC coin. The change was .00000001. In order to send a transaction with outputs less than 0.01, the network requires a fee of 0.01. This would obviously be pointless, so Bitcoin just threw the BTC away.

Not if you sent many transactions.

This attack is more difficult than the article implies, but it is possible.

A public, Starbucks-type access point using EFF's PKC scheme would not be much more secure than "open" WPA, since most users would still be vulnerable at the initial handshake to a MITM attack. However, it would be a great improvement on home networks where you connect to the same AP a lot.

Right. The generation is just an input to a transaction. The value of the input is found by the block subsidy + fees. The outputs follow the normal transaction rules.

The generator could easily create a giant generation transaction with tons of garbage outputs. You don't even need to pay out to the outputs: 0-value outputs are valid. The block size is limited to 1MB, though.

You'll probably have 0 if you've used your wallet much. Read:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet

It must have been deleted by the author. It was in this topic:
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.msg101804#msg101804
He did respond to that post with a fairly long explanatory post, but it's gone now.

I don't remember who it was. I seem to remember it being someone new, who had not participated in that discussion recently (or maybe not at all). I could be wrong, though.

Deleted posts aren't logged or saved. The post might exist in the backups Sirius and Gavin keep.

WPA uses separate encryption keys for everyone, so you can give out a password without allowing people to snoop on your traffic.

This is not the case for WEP.