Basically, in order for a wallet to be "green" it needs to be associated with a real world identity and, if it serves as an exchange, it also needs to follow the policy not to exchange anonymous into pseudonymous. Any wallet that doesn't follow this policy is tainted. At fiat offramps, seize monies sourced from tainted wallets as it's presumptively illegal.
Ah yes, threats and bureaucracy, the go-to tools of the statist. Reminds me, more than anything else, of all the joy sparked worldwide for the better part of the 20th century by the War on Drugs. In your ideal world, is any cash transaction also "presumed guilty" (hah!) of money laundering?
The real fault lies with institutions rushing to half-assedly digitize so now they're wide open to script kiddies, and with enterprise IT providers doing a piss-poor job at doing correct software engineering. And now you're suggesting more savagery like it's some sort of solution to anything at all?
Yeah I mean we have these requirements for banks. They seem to work pretty well for preventing bank system usage in ransomware. So, at least at a glance, I think something in this direction would work.
The war on drugs is bad because it doesn't work, and because drugs cause less harm than fighting them does. It's not an apt comparison to the situation we're talking about.
As far as comparisons go, let's try this on for size.
Which of the following causes more harm in total:
(a) a ransomware gang attacking the computers of a hospital, thus endangering the lives of its patients; or
(b) law-abiding citizens adhering to a historically contingent economic system which leaves millions of people without access to healthcare?
I think it's best to talk about specific things rather than broadening every conversation to encompass the entire economic system and the problems with it. Probably someone wants to have that conversation with you, but that someone isn't me.
