Yup but that's what why I proposed a double lock system:
A double lock system does not get around the fact that it is still a UI/UX issue.
Furthermore, you are asking users to remember yet another password. It seems that it is far more common for people to lose their coins by forgetting their password rather than having someone steal them. Even cases of stolen encrypted wallets seem to be quite low. By adding another password, you introduce yet another way for people to lose their coins. Forget one of two passwords and you are screwed.
Fair enough, I have had problems in the past remembering password. I did full disk encryption with Veracrypt and I forgot the passwords I used, and now i can't access a couple of hard disks, but I didn't really bother remembering them that much since there wasn't anything of value inside. It would be good to have it optional.
GUI reminds me Graphical Unit Interface ... witch reminds unix X window (X11, people used to say terrible security flaws ) ...
I think you're missing the point... Bitcoin Core is capable of being run WITHOUT a GUI (and many people use it like this). How is one supposed to prompt a user for a password to unlock the wallet at startup, if it can't actually display a prompt or accept input of any kind?
As someone else already pointed out... the wallet functionality of Bitcoin Core is more of an "add-on", offering basic features... rather than the main focus of the software. If you find that it isn't offering the features you want, your options are:
A. Add them in yourself (it's open source afterall)
or
B. Use a different wallet. There are plenty of wallets that provide for fully encrypted wallet files.
If you want/need to run a Node, but also want full wallet file encryption, there is no reason you can't simply run the node without using the wallet component of Bitcoin Core and then use another wallet application offering the full encryption.
ps. It's Graphical
User Interface
So how can you make a transaction with bitcoind in an encrypted wallet if it doesn't ask for a password?
Bitcoin Core has always focussed MUCH more on being a node than a wallet. Wallet features exist, and are occasionally updated, but consensus rules, reliability, stability, and performance have always been more important. If you want other features, use another wallet, or add the features yourself. It's open source. If you can get together a team of developers that will write, review, and test the code, then there's a pretty good chance that it could be pulled into Core.
Well, you can rename your wallet.dat file so it doesn't get opened everytime you open the client. So if you want to just have the client opened 24/7 to help the network, you can rename it, and when you need to make a transaction, you can name it back to wallet.dat. This way your wallet.dat would remain encrypted.
You aren't supposed to have your wallet.dat file in an online computer anyway, so that is not really an issue. You just want to ideally block access to wallet.dat as much as possible.
Also about separaing full node from a wallet, I agree with Luke-jr here:
It isn't secure to have a wallet without a node. Might as well be using PayPal.
60 GB is (as @jonnyb42 points out) practically nothing these days, certainly not a barrier to adoption. There are many far more important things needed before Bitcoin is ready for mainstream use.
Third-party services are, as already mentioned, not much better than PayPal (even if you hold the private keys).
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7525So ideally, you want to have the full client to transact, and just don't have to settle to other software to hold the keys.
And with that, I mean you're more paranoid than I am, which I consider the maximum level to keep my own sanity 
