I hope that you can help out by reporting your findings back to them. I think Bitmessage is a really cool idea. It has the potential to allow communication to occur no matter what hostile power wants to censor it. It also finally make end-to-end message encryption a default rather than an after-thought.
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
The developers don't seem to want to talk about it, but there's an original thread on bitcointalk.org that details the network event. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0
ED: I got the number wrong above, it wasn't 32M BTC but 92,233,720,368 BTC
Keep hacking, my friend.
Wouldn't that fail to propagate through the network? Crashing nodes can't forward messages to other nodes.
Since it doesn't involve the transfer of money or copyrighted material, it shouldn't yet be rejected by Apple's reviewers as the BitTorrent and BitCoin protocol have been. Skype is still allowed, and that technically is (or used to be?) a peer to peer communications system.
Unfortunately, you aren't presently allowed by Apple to run a background socket on iOS for longer than 10 minutes unless it is a full VoIP application, so you would never be able to use it for push-style communication, without compromising a user's anonymity via a web backend that stores your APNS token (device specific messaging token for iOS devices).
I know none of what you said is new news, but seeing it all come together like that really highlights the problem with Apple's policies.
IMO, a much more useful app to build would be an HTML5 Bitmessage app that users can just run in their browser (similar to the blockchain.info/wallet app for bitcoin). This would make the technology accessible to a much larger group of people.
It's not just a threat against activists under oppressive regimes, it's a matter of "national security". Centralized chat services like WeChat  (developed by by Tencent in China) or WhatsApp  get more popular, the governments of the world will be able to intercept all private communication on a large scale. Although to be fair, privacy has been effectively dead pretty much worldwide for a while now.
But there is another fee levied when the most popular set of devices in our country allows unlimited snooping of the people's data.
Because when the average user hits a badly written app that constantly uses the network in the background and kills the battery in 2 hours, they're not gonna go sift through logs to see what's taking the power assertions.
Anyhow, assuming I misunderstood something, passive listening doesn't seem to work well with their description of stream scalability, since Alice would now think she knows Bradley's stream, when it was actually Charlie's stream. For this to work, I suppose Alice would have to know that Bradley would be a secret listener to begin with.
In any case, it is definitely an interesting read. Seems like the type of thing Julian Assange would love to have. 
Anyway, this is a pretty cool implementation. Just one question though, how does a node know if a certain message is for it, rather than another node? The whitepaper didn't specify anything about attaching a recipient to the message.
>Just like Bitcoin transactions and blocks, all users would receive all messages. They would be responsible for attempting to decode each message with each of their private keys to see whether the message is bound forthem.
Bitcoin itself could often use sideband communication protocols for, e.g. transaction details, but this doesn't seem to tick all the boxes: incentives alignment needs to be worked on, and I would suggest that the spamming prevention is somewhat naive; there should be a market.
Consider -- all bitmessage messages are considered "high quality" by default, and therefore sent directly to one's phone.
Botnet operators determine that while one botnet client could send 100 e-mails per minute, the open rate on one bitmessage message is nearly 100%, making it economically feasible to botnet spam bitmessage.
I would like to see more self leveling, and a pricing market baked in to something like this, as well as a way to send messages instantly.
Apparently it did not catch on that well and a decade later Satoshi used it among other things to create Bitcoin.
As long as we're speculating wildly, I have a theory... (Bear with me now) It is possible, if not probable, that Ted Nelson is himself Satoshi and was only trying to throw everyone off the trail (or it's Adam Back, I can't be sure, but it's definitely one of the two, if not both...).
I love the Satoshi speculations a lot, I think Bitcoin is awesome enough as it is, but to add that the creator is unknown just makes the story even more compelling.
If Bitcoin does take off or a derivative based on Bitcoin, it will be weird having this anonymous guy as the creator. Most computer science history has no large mystery like Bitcoin will have. (If Bitcoin is still around in a decade or more)
Makes me wonder if there's a Bigend out there with a crack team of Satoshi researchers on a globetrotting adventure...
I wonder what, if anything, they've found...
Theres also the speculation that Satoshi is not an individual, but rather a government or organization. In this case, there are almost defiantly written records of 'who' he is.
Or it might end up truly being lost to history.
This is exactly the point. Most people can not afford to run a mailserver 24/7. With Bitmessage you only have to be online very shortly every other day.
Here's a test one if you feel like trying it out: BM-2DCGcvGwvGUr7yYSzWWa6rBrVok8mM7HtK
I don't think the name matters but I called it 'kruhft-list'.