The problem with Satoshi's "solution" is that it is only half a solution and doesn't address the key sticking point.  The problem is the desire to use Bitcoins, as we currently use bitcoins, to pay the "fees" for conducting "transactions" with the DNS system or other similar systems and to give that payment some sort of meaning in terms of that payment being something other than a purely voluntary and optional donation system.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but that is the real issue at hand right now.  I've outlined my ideas clearly, and furthermore Satoshi's "solution" only addresses the issue of forking the mining effort or trying to keep that at least somewhat unified.  Essentially he was suggesting that alternate "currencies" could put together some sort of networking protocol to share the mining effort.  On that point I completely agree, but the unstated elephant in the room, the one thing that everybody wants to avoid but isn't being stated, is the need to create a parallel currency to Bitcoin because Bitcoin itself is inadequate to accomplishing the task at hand.

At the moment I'm working at trying to re-implement the Bitcoin specification as an alternate implementation... for my own benefit and use but I do have some reasons for that as well.  That is a huge hurdle to accomplish, and that is one of the reasons why you also don't see anything happening with this concept at the moment because such an effort takes time.  My goal, as such as it is, that once I create a working alternate client to Bitcoin that I can then make a "fork" to do other things with it such as BitDNS.  We could also fork the main Bitcoin client flat out, but regardless what is needed is to fork the protocol itself.  It is something that most developers involved are trying desperately not to do either, as evidenced by the Nanotube/Theymos effort and the work of others.