First, decreasing time available to deliver solutions is a good thing because that means there's also less time available for an adversary to use the vulnerability.
This is not a security vulnerability. Please don't discuss it as if it were.
Second, the plural of anecdote is not data. Some reddheads complaining about their lack of instant gratification does not indicate SatoshiDice has in any way retarded Bitcoin node growth.
I would think it would be quite important to draw the distinction between complaining and being genuinely worried. SatoshiDice has directly lengthened the download speed when there were less resource-intensive options available.
That's why (third) you (and nobody else) know or have any way to give real numbers. Extraordinary claims such as 'ZOMG SpamToshidie -> death of Bitcoin' require extraordinary evidence. Not mere supposition and propagation of hearsay.
SatoshiDice spams blockchain -> blockchain grows unnecessarily -> users complain -> users leave -> death of Bitcoin(?)
Fourth, while the 'transaction spam attack' and corresponding blockchain bloat are not 0-day in the narrow sense, they were in the broad sense that before SatoshiDice the network response to them was untested and no countermeasures had ever been put into place.
Wrong! There are attempts clearly visible in the blockchain, both on prodnet, as well as testnet. You may also take a look at the Litecoin alternative chain for some serious spamming.
Fifth, pool ops are doing more than ignoring 1dice addresses. I'm surprised that's the only response you're aware of.
No matter, the other countermeasures have already provided a number of ways to respond to intentionally malicious transaction spam.
Since you're so bothered with accurate sources, please list the countermeasures implemented directly because of SatoshiDice, sans "ignoring 1dice addresses" (which in itself is a flawed way to describe it).
Thus, we are in fact less prone to say, the ButtCoin clowns deciding to pay lots of transaction fees solely for the purpose of clogging up confirmations and blockchain downloads, than before SatoshiDice forced the issue.
Clogging up confirmations?! Such a claim would require extraordinary evidence. Not mere supposition and propagation of hearsay. Please detail how exactly you go about doing such a thing in a manner more destructive than that of SatoshiDice.
Sixth, we are once again digressing into a generic white vs black hat debate. Sure, I was mildly annoyed at having to change my linkedin password, but OTOH anyone registered at Gawker deserved to be doxed into a puddle of blubbering goo. So you may scold and wag your finger at the black hats all you like, while I stand firm and enjoy epic lulz with Wikileaks and Anonymous.
I don't think I have to address this...
