Can cold thrusters/roll posts be used to control/stabilize an aircraft (like a satellite)?
There are several ways to do it, rockets or turbojets. Rockets have a problem with fueling them, turbojets are very difficult to find a place for that offers reasonable leverage. 
Roll posts on the F-35B are not really thrusters, but rather use redirected engine thrust. They're not light either. Engine thrust at high altitude and airspeed is considerably lower than at sea level, while required control forces are larger.

Short version: The reason why control surfaces are better for control than cold thrusters is Lift coefficient, or more precisely the lift-to-drag or lift-to-thrust ratio. 

An engine directed in the direction you want to apply force in has a lift-to-thrust ratio of 1. Each newton of engine thrust, gets you 1 newton of force. To produce 1 kN of force from the roll post, you lose 1 kN of thrust.

An airfoil at some angle of attack has a lift-to-drag ratio generally between 5 and 25. By deflecting an airfoil to get 1 kN of force, you only lose 40-200 N of thrust to drag. Thus, it's a much more efficient way to change your direction.



All in all, using thrusters of either type would result in...

Less efficiency: Thrusters require fuel, control surfaces don't. And if they're rocket type, they even need to carry the oxidizer.
Cold thrusters don't require extra fuel directly, but they "steal" main engine thrust, so you get slightly less efficiency. 

More weight: An engine can produce 10 times its weight in thrust for 1 unit weight, but an airfoil at high angles of attack can produce a force 100 times its weight. The big weight problem will the be the added fuel, especially for rocket engines that need a lot of oxidizer. Plus, you still need the control surfaces, because they're the only way to adjust your aerodynamics for sustained flight. Thrusters could only be used to accelerate the initial maneuver. 

Better responsiveness: with rockets, but a lot of fuel is required for those.
Worse responsiveness: if you reduce control surface size and use turbojets (they take a long time to spin up). The same if control surface size is unchanged.
Same responsiveness: with roll posts/cold thrusters.

Less friction drag: if control surface size is reduced. But since you still have to keep your control surfaces, just can get them smaller (the largest deflections are used at low airspeeds), not much less. Also, the added induced drag from the extra fuel may make up for it. 



Overall: There's a reason that even rockets typically use fins (control surfaces) when possible. The only things an aircraft may need thrusters for is things that can't be done with control surfaces.
For instance, roll posts are used on the F-35B because control surfaces don't work at zero airspeed. Thrust vectoring has enabled some maneuvers beyond the normal angle of attack envelope. 

If not for the oxidizer problem, there could be some applications for thrusters for unusual maneuvers, strictly in addition to control surfaces. As it stands, their thrust is too expensive to get, compared to force from the control surfaces and even to main engine thrust.