I agree with your first part, but then you go off on a tangent ("By distributing the code...") that seems inapplicable??
The audit of the source is complete. The next phase of the audit is cryptanalysis.
Yes, it seems pretty clear to me that this is a warrant canary.
It may still be that they triggered it (or let it self-trigger via inaction) out of lack of desire to continue the project.
In any case, the presumed goal of the canary - making sure that no one trusts any future TrueCrypt version released via the normal channel - has certainly been successful.
You are behind the times.
The binary build was duplicated from the source.
The source has been audited.
Only works if we drink it in space.
And we'd need a space elevator to avoid an even worse carbon problem there...
This. Though that three months sounds exeedingly generous to me. It takes very little time to get up to speed enough to start working with a new fad/language/API/SDK, especially if you are willing to bare your ignorance by asking questions where needed.
Because the whole point of a "correct horse battery staple" password is to make a password you can remember simply as a story. It is counterproductive to add in foreign words (to the extent that makes a story harder) or other rules like how to represent accented characters or what punctuation to put between words.
zxcvbn rates that as 78 bits of entropy; 72 without the ~.
But if everyone starts using some foreign words or terms with accented characters transliterated, it becomes just another part of a cracker's dictionary, and not much better than "The boy causes rain." (59 bits, still an excellent password).
What is "late-term" in this context?
Number of employees is not a particularly relevant measure (except perhaps of how much money the investors are willing to throw away). How long since the first employee was hired? How many employees were there a year ago?
The concept is that the market is supposed to be for investing. Investing implies certain loss of liquidity (no idea what you mean by loss of value). That said, see my response.
There's no need to set a minimum time; what is needed is a minimum tax or fee. It could be
No, the point of the difficulty is to make attacks, err, difficult. Nothing to do with creating of bitcoins. If you are misunderstanding things this grievously, sit back and let other people talk for a while.
Somebody please tell me this is an elaborate April fool's joke that someone noticed the groundwork for early?
Yes. I thought that went without saying, under the "privatize the gains, socialize the losses"/expenses rubric.