I understand people's reluctance, but I've yet to hear that this would really hurt anyone other than possibly the people with the locked coins. And in those cases, there would be a procedure for unlocking.

I also understand the general concern that this would change the underlying perception of bitcoin. In other words, that the value of bitcoin for most people is derived from the fact that there is no such locking possible. Now while that certainly has been the rule to date, the question is, would such an ability to lock addresses, subject to a review procedure, increase or decrease the typical potential user's confidence?

Certainly the criminal element wouldn't like this. By and large, of course, they would usually be flying under the radar of some limit on the amount and would likely be in trouble by the time legal action is taken against them anyway, but presumably they still wouldn't like this.

But I do wonder what the effect would be for the much larger number of potential users that bitcoin is trying to expand into? Certainly the aficionados who tend to read this forum aren't representative of this group.

I've actually read comments of at least a few miners that might be in favor of such an idea, because they don't want their resources being used to commit a large fraud or theft.

I tend to be interested in the actual facts behind an issue and don't pay much attention to arguments from authority. If you don't like my discussions or posts, please go ahead and block me so you don't have to read them.