Vladimir's inference was that this 'solving' the issue at the client level would be giving a false sense of security, which is the worst of all worlds.
An age-old fallacy. Anything that helps, helps.
Do you not install locks and burglar alarms because they aren't 100 % proof?
Should we not install airbags in cars even though they don't guarantee survival?
etc etc
I could come up with hundreds of examples.
Having wallet.dat encrypted is just the last wall of defence, which could potentially give its owner enough time to realize his computer has been compromised, and allow him to move the coins to a safe wallet. The private keys really only need to be unencrypted when payments are made, so the attack surface is reduced by much more than most people probably realize. It also requires the thief to target Bitcoin specifically, pretty much eliminating opportunity-made-thieves, and reducing the risk from random break-ins.
It's also somewhat easy to implement.
No, it's not 100 % hacker-proof, but to have any usability wallet.dat needs to be available relatively easily. All the suggestions of having an extra computer not routed to the internet, or booting from a thumbdrive, just to make the occasional online payment are laughable. Make those kinds of requirements, and Bitcoin is guaranteed to not take off, ever.
lol
