I know, there are people who wanna buy drugs/weapon/child porn, this BIP is not for them, they can always use "old school" wallets that will not support this "regulation feature".
I'm not following you. Couldn't such users still choose to use the regulation feature but simply supply false information? If everyone is free to supply whatever information they wish then who benefits from such a scheme?
I have to assume you have some plan for ensuring a reasonable level of metadata integrity but I cannot discern it from your post.
Interfaces for regulation must begin to develop, this is nothing about hurting the Bitcoin user's privacy, we need to break away from that "drug dealer "character and understand that protocol-level standards will create strong ground for that Nobel technology.
Why do you consider the Bitcoin technology noble? What value do you see in Bitcoin that does not already exist in better established alternatives?
First of all, thanks everyone for the reference,
Implementing this "trust" layer on wallets should be a decision of the wallet developers,if they decided to add a BIP like that,they will be responsible for verifying their customer's information,otherwise their service will not be considered 'trusted',(i didn't mentioned that,but its the wallet service provider responsibility).
The direction here is to create some standard for verifying identities,because i see that every new bitcoin "company" trying to create her own standard and what i think is that we need to create some consensus in a much lower level then everyone apps/services.
If you set a single and simple way for every wallet provider for verify his customer (merchant/costumer) then is a much better way to start and create trust between wallets-merchants-costumers.
The "open source" approach is good for developers,not for regular people who want to understand who they can call in a case of emergency,this is the reason why "series" wallets who determined to keep peoples money must be under a much harder laws of the protocol/bitcoin community.
We can think about the SSL and the Certificate_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_SecurityIf the "authority" is faking the SSL,no one will be her client and she can not exist as a business because she's not loyal.
Same process like that should translated to the Bitcoin echo system as a BIP i think...
About your second question "Why do you consider the Bitcoin technology noble?"
For me bitcoin is not money,its "Value over the Internet",it can be the "next generation of money",i never see other platform that works worldwide so good that can transfer any value within a seconds,its just something amazing.
Another major thing,the Bitcoin system is just "working",as a user I never saw any bugs, always the money goes to his destination,any amount that i ever sent,the transaction went smoothly (hundreds of transactions).
All the "bugs" and risks out there (51% attack,scalability of the blockchain and more..) are just "tasks" that developers will resolved over time,for regular users the bitcoin is really a simple thing that just works great ,but i still think that it will take at least 7-15 years for that technology to become adopted seriously.
One doesn't want to use the certificate authority as an example. As a centralized authority they can be coerced or compromised. Look at the issues with MITM from various countries for example - China, probably the NSA etc.
A distributed solution like name coin for domains is important here. Centralized is the opposite of the philosophy of bitcoin.
Edit: In practice the CA's have been compromised at the governmental level and even in egregious examples haven't always been punished in the market place because few people are aware of the issues.