No, in the world of blacklisted Bitcoins I can not risk accepting coins from an anonymous individual because they could end up being tainted if the theft is reported after my exchange. So, I have to keep records and exchange personal information for every transaction I do, in order to protect myself. I may have to take steps to recover my goods if I get stuck with some tainted, worthless coins. Now I have to be able to verify if identification is legitimate or not, see records of current addresses, etc. This all leads to the wonderful world of bankers and fees. Middlemen getting rich off of peoples' inability to protect themselves from theft. Systems we already have. I see no reason to trade all the advantages of Bitcoin away just for some lousy blacklist that will cause more harm than good.
It is your choice to keep records and such then. Nothing forces you to stop being anonymous. You *might* lose a transaction's worth of coins over the deal if they are still in your wallet. Nothing compels you to keep records or come forward if there is an issue.
To be honest, I can't see any reason you are interested in Bitcoin to begin with if you only want to change it into the systems already available.
Funny I can say the same about those wanting to turn Bitcoin into a glorified form of cash. Just use cash instead, it is far more anonymous and stable than Bitcoin. What I want to do has never been done with any currency, ever, because it was previously impossible. Besides, we already have bankers and fees, they're called exchanges. Exchanges are also a point of centralization, btw. Everybody rails against the centralization, yet they use the exchanges. Because of the centralization exchanges would also be the best place to administer blacklists.
Look, even if I am not the one to bring this now, somebody will sooner or later. Why? Because it can be done. Put it out there now, while we are in beta, and let the market sort it out. If nobody respects tainted coins then the whole thing falls apart and it can be permanently put to bed, with proof it doesn't work. Otherwise this issue will pop up every time there is a major heist, and there will be more thefts. Besides, for those who argue this will destroy Bitcoin, what happens if a determined attacker implements this? You don't need a majority of the network, only a few %, after which it snowballs.
I doubt I will convince you, and I've already changed sides after dwelling on it for quite some time, so I doubt you will convince me.
I know I won't convince you, especially after I noticed you made many similar arguments several months ago. Multi-sig has me seriously reconsidering my security argument. I will ponder the rest of it. I do want to thank you for being civil. I appreciate it.