First, thank you for engaging in the conversation at hand instead of just trolling :-)
Next, although I, too, would like to think of cryptocurrencies as "cash," the unfortunate reality is that "cash" will always be a physical medium of exchange, and cryptocurrencies are digital, therefore fall under the guise of an electronic medium of exchange.
1. That said, I completely agree when it comes to Personal Wallets.
2. I strongly think that Business Wallets should be different, and subject to regulatory measures.
3. I am in no way suggesting any change to, let alone removing, any feature of any cryptocoin's features...... only in making a change to the "business as an end user's" wallet. This feature could be implemented today, and no private individual would notice any difference.... except when it came to having the ability of getting their coins back from a business that did them wrong (like the in the case of BFL).
The simplest way, as I can see it, is in refusing to purchase from businesses which do not refund their customers when they have done wrong. I believe it is better for all of us that we ensure once money is transmitted from one party to another, it is done so with the confidence that the receiving member is trustworthy. This causes people to be conscious about the decisions they make, and to not be impulsive with their purchases. This roots out businesses which do not play nicely (since their reputation is at complete state), with the effect of causing startups to find it more difficult to begin.
So what we're really seeking is a system to ensure new business has a chance to grow in the trust of its clients, while providing protection to its clients in the event of it not being able to provide quality service. This can be setup through the use of escrow, in which a trusted third party holds the money devoted to the company in question until said company can ship their product to the individual, whereupon the individual receiving the item can give the OK to the escrow party to release funds to the company. If, as in the case of BFL, the company fails to deliver on its promises, the individual can then request their money back from the escrow party. This process can be repeated for as long as necessary until the company is established and trusted to issue their own refunds when need be. Although we may never know if a business will suddenly fail to perform or refund, it becomes much less likely the more the entity trades successfully.
The core quality we must consider is in people being careless with their money; the illusion of security dictates that we can ship our money wherever we please with a guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong. People are trained to be careless; I believe it's best that we be far more prudent with who we trust. In this transition between now and then, people would be wise to ask that business work with escrow services if it is security they seek; this helps to ensure fairness and protection between both the business and the individual. As unfortunate as it is that BFL has made the decisions it has, this is an important lesson to us all as to who we give our money to.
Now, an automated escrow service, such as in the case of a modified business wallet, could be feasible, but I don't see it working without the trusted third party to oversee the process, nor would I trust a lone, appointed entity to act as the authority of this process; as we have learned, centralization is a doorway to abuse, and if people are given any room for abuse, they tend to take the opportunity, as we're always working in our own favor. Likewise, the agency would be unable to enforce who can operate and cannot without political power; without political power, the agency is pointless, and with political power, the agency is bound to abuse its power. Instead of resorting to these abstractions, I would encourage people to simply be careful with who handles their money, and to stay connected as to which businesses are trustworthy and which are not. Even when considering BFL, it was, albeit without many knowing, a risk, and with all risks, you sometimes lose out. There is no such thing as safety or security without knowledge and cautiousness.
So in this case, had BFL agreed to use an escrow service at its customer's demand (in an alternate universe anyhow), people would have their money in hand and the grief would be long over. The moral of the story is to weigh trust with convenience, and give benefit to trust for it often outweighs the convenience.
) Say someone figures out how to set this up via automated api call/sends and ssh tunneling and somehow there's a an over charge/spend on someones part? Just floating ides. 