Who actually checks the code? I think almost no one because everyone trusts "someone else" will do it.

I would think that with the daily price fluctuating so much it is too high of risk for online stores to accept bitcoin.  Prices would have to adjust with the ticker price of the bitcoin market for it to be safe.

There is no universal solution.  Every jurisdiction will have different requirements that must be followed to do business above board.  There can of course be in person cash transactions, but anything digital will likely have to follow laws, and the laws will vary widely.

The graphic should show what happens if Bob does not receive the wire transfer and they agree to cancel the transaction. I guess in that case a "rollback transaction"  is necessary (input: deposit 1.2, output: Bob 1.1 , Alice 0.1) right?

So I posted the other day I had too many coins in gox across accounts to admit haha, and felt admitting that it was due to complacency and stupidity that I did so .... I take that back.  I now have 5783 coins in Gox as I am buying here and if I have the patience and guts to buy back in to 8,000 coins then I will do so.  They have never done me wrong and I understand that this is an experiment.  If I lose, I lose and I knew that way back when.

So who here has heard of a Board of Directors who knew there was a problem for over two and a half years and wrote papers and academics detailing the problem but did not act until after the problem had manifested itself?  The Federal Reserve you would say!?!  And you would be right.

What is different here is we have the power to do something about it and soon you are going to see some changes.  From me.  I am in the shadows working on many projects but one of them will simply be a new core team of developers for BTC, the community will have the opportunity to go in Bitcoin 1.0's direction or Bitcoin 2.0's direction.  I see too much Americentric development and discussion around Bitcoin's future.  Luckily the phenomenon has a voting mechanism to choose which way they wish to go with 51% of the network power.

They have all served their purpose and done well.  However for the experiment to become reality, we will require a bit more discipline and less drama.

Dude, the vote is weighted to how much MMC you have in your wallet.  Someones vote who has 10,000 MMC's in their wallet will have 10x the voting power as someone with 1000( not necessarily the ratio used, just an example).  Since these guys have been holding office for a couple weeks and gaining upwards of 500mmc per day, it's sufficient to say some of them have over 8k in MMC when your average miner in a pool might be lucky to have a couple hundred.
 
This is not decentralized. There is a possibility for these guys to gain so much control that it would take a massive coordinated campaign to remove them from office.

If each address/wallet with at least 1 MMC got one equal vote and the number of MMC beyond 1 had no weight, along with maybe a 2 coin payout per 20 blocks I would be okay with it. But 53 coins every 20 blocks is just a faucet for a selected few while diluting miners worth at the same time.

Here is wiki's definition of decentralization: Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.

Redistributing is what I want to do.

Send a Satoshi to this address MVTEceo3RoiqBhfqjVovtyMAVUJLoHiGTg
Or
Vote for these spoil addresses if you don't trust or want me to redistribute the coins, please!

MVTEceo1111111111111111111111TvNrt
MVTEcha11111111111111111111116GDGs
MVTEcmo1111111111111111111115e9dK3
MVTEcto1111111111111111111119owJby
MVTEcno222222222222222222222B1FB3W
MVTEcso555555555555555555555G6uEbs

53 coins going to each officer every 20 blocks is absurd.

CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.