Read overruns causing occasional crashes isn't much of an issue for the attacker if the server is auto-restarting.

Should we legislate for people's eyes to cast bright lights too while they're seeing?

If perfect forward secrecy is used in the connections (which most HTTPS sites seem to do last I checked), then knowing the private keys doesn't even help them decrypt a connection, *unless* they're actively man-in-the-middling the connection from the start (which I'm sure they do often against interesting people, but probably not anywhere near 100% of everything).

Nice try, NSA.

Yeah, if RSA didn't take a bribe, then they're just grossly incompetent and should still be villified anyway.

That's not at all what the article is saying. A relay injecting content into your connection does not de-anonymize you. Tor works to guarantee anonymity. It doesn't guarantee that the exit relay isn't watching what's going through it or modifying the connection. That's why it's important to use HTTPS.

Anyone can use any of the exit relays. That's the point of the relays.

If you set your browser to remember your passwords, then anyone that uses your browser (including a virus) can get your passwords. That's exactly how the feature is supposed to work.

I think Bitcoin is extremely cool technology, but if I had a company I would not bet the company on the stability of its price right now. I would sell off most of the bitcoins I received as payment for dollars pretty quickly, or just pay a company a small amount to do that for me. Maybe in the future when Bitcoin is accepted in more places then its price will stabilize and that will be an extra step. Bitcoin has to go through a phase where most businesses exchange it immediately to ever get near enough adoption to stabilize.

They pay someone else to run the exchange in their own office. Coinbase.

As a customer, you don't have to sign up for a Coinbase account.

The transaction fees already exist. It's not like the designers never thought about what will happen after all bitcoins are minted.

A) The maximum number of bitcoins was publicly predetermined from the start. It's 21 million.

B) Bitcoin mining requires specialized hardware to be profitable to mine, so this isn't something that anyone with a supercomputer can just decide to mine effectively on a whim any more.

C) Why would it be bad that most individuals couldn't mine? Bitcoin mining isn't supposed to be an egalitarian "everyone gets free money" system. It's a reward for using your computational power to help secure the system. If a hundred groups with supercomputers / mining machines can mine more than 100,000 people using desktop machines, then the former group pushing out the latter from the market is the way things should be. (However there is a problem if any group colluding gets more than 50% of mining power together.)

Which CPU architecture do we decide that the web relies on?

It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?

Miners will still collect transaction fees from transactions after all minting is done; Bitcoin wasn't designed to implode when the 21M cap is hit.

No, if mining stops, then Bitcoin stops. Mining is necessary to confirm transactions. Miners will still collect transaction fees after all bitcoins are minted.