It's a silly proposal.
That said, banks do have a legitimate and serious problem when it comes to bitcoin. They have to register with their state as money transmitters. As money transmitters they're legally responsible to ensure that the transactions they process aren't aiding terrorists or money launderers. That requires adhering to a sea of laws and oversight from Dodd-Frank to OFAC checks (when lending) to keeping the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the Treasury happy. Bitcoin all but makes that impossible. It's one of the biggest hurdles bitcoin is going to have to get over, and I don't see a great way to do that... It's the No. 1 factor that makes me nervous about bitcoin's future.
But what does legally responsible really mean? I mean, look at Wochovia and HSBC, both of them were found guilty of laundering drug money. And it was close to 1 Trillion dollars between them (I've seen that number mentioned). Further, it was clear (due to the amount and the physical setup in the banks!) that they were complicit in it. But, they were "too big to fail" as the lie goes. Let's face it, LARGE banks in the U.S.A. are immune from real prosecution. Yeah, they will pay a penalty, but when the penalty doesn't deter the "reward" they will just continue. Their fine was like fining me .20 for speeding, or .05 for riding the bus without a ticket. It was like an invitation to continue.
Now, I can see your argument being true for smaller banks. But they don't run things.
