This is not a change to the Bitcoin Protocol, miners (or just people running fully-validating wallet and relay nodes) cannot affect this move. Although some kind of protocol integration will no doubt be proposed by someone or other.
But that's not what this is. In some ways, this is worse than a client/blockchain fork. At least the differing market price for Bitcoin and TaintCoin would help to settle the fight. Any Bitcoin based business would then have to choose which of the coins to support, and watch how much custom they receive from each if they choose both.
This CoinValidation group is the beginnings of a way to gradually force customers to disclose their identities, not via the protocol, but by good old fashioned legislation.
This would be weird.
One could own two companies, one that accepts only tainted coins and one that accepts only untainted.
The two companies could trade with each other to do inventory management, using off-block-chain settlement (such as fiat, gold, ledger entries, whatever).
The burden would be an additional company registration and some overhead, but why not address both markets?
And.
Should we expect a company to arise that automates this dual-company approach? Might it be owned by one of these coin-tainters?
The Coin Validation concept is getting into the territory of a non-issue.
- CoinJoin designs and implementations are now here
- Stealth addresses are now on the table
- Miners will likely discourage or prevent address re-use once there is no need to for re-use (HD wallets and Stealth addresses cover all bases AFAIA)
And there's still no sign of Coin Validation. At least now we know the angle of the individuals who led the effort, and I expect most bitcoin users will be avoiding giving them their custom like the plague. Avalon's slow sales are early evidence of this (as well as stopping direct customer sales to sidestep the fallout they created, very subtle Yifu!).