That's one obvious consequence of MIT licensing, and has been going on for decades. I doubt it is a surprise to satoshi, or anyone else.
yeah, it's not surprising at all ... that's why MIT should not be considered in a first place, exactly because it allows this kind of abuse. The question is not whether it is surprising but whether it is desirable, wouldn't you say? If any kind of proprietary software stemming from this would get popular, it's not going to be surprising at all when a hell of a lot of people will get robbed of all their bitcoins ... that doesn't mean we should allow it, does it? I said people are just confused ... talking about whether it is "surprising" the the license allows for obvious abuse rather than talking about eliminating that abuse. Do you support that kind of "obvious consequence" then? It seem to me that you're arguing in its favor.
Binaries may contain suspect code regardless of the license. Yet 999 out of 1000 users prefer binaries, because they are not programmers and would have no clue what to do with source code in their hands.
The source (ie. download origin, and PGP signer) of the software is always far more paramount, if you are worrying about bitcoin theft and other abuse.
X11 or BSD are not small client programs that handle your freaking financial transactions, I bet you would be all happy to accept this program I made, it makes credit card transactions a lot easier, you just type in your credit card information into it ... it's real convenient, shall I send it to you? I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem with that, would ya?
BSD OS's handle tons of financial transactions. Wall Street loves Linux, but it's got plenty of BSD in there too.