That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history.
It's never been attempted. The infrastructure has not been developed or if it has it is not yet unvailed. All in good time. Probably we need Gavin's bloatchain to make sure it isn't premature and fails due to adaptation. I personally think that even primitive tainting will work quite well even at this point due to the mechanism I've described multiple times here. We'll see soon enough I suspect unless it waits on Gavin and he gets enough resistance to push back his timing significantly.
You may define down, or otherwise minimize, as rigorously and deflectively as you like the term 'tainting.'
smooth and I prefer the functional definition, elucidated via praxis.
IE, if you wish to move your coins, but are prevented from doing so by consequence of some third parties' ostensible interest in them rather than technical obstacles, they are by the common understanding 'tainted.'
The nightmare scenario for you Old Whales is a whitelist, where by default movement of all non-permitted coins is forbidden.
Did you read the linked reddit discussion? Peter Todd makes some good points in this area, albeit on the shaky grounds of the slippery slope trope.
Thankfully my coins are clean so whitelisting for me would only be a disaster insofar as it would destroy any reason whatsoever for anyone to used Bitcoin and thus the solution (and my stash) would eventually die. I'd either cash out before it dawned on people that Bitcoin was useless, or hope that a following system would start out where Bitcoin left off vis-a-vis a value base. Probably some combination of both.