So I was watching a BTC piece on Bloomberg West show today which polled the audience in regard to their trust in BTC after the gox collapse, which was an overall pretty negative piece. This has pushed me to finally ask, you, the experts:
That sounds like a great source for false information and misunderstanding. Please don't base your knowledge about bitcoins from sources like this.
since each coin has a 'unique id' of sorts,
It doesn't. That is a complete misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. There is no "unique id" that represents any portion of a bitcoin at all. If you think that's confusing, it will really blow your mind when you learn that there is no such thing as "a bitcoin". The concept of "a bitcoin" is an abstraction that we humans use to make it easier to talk about the concept of transfering control of value.
why isnt there an app/extension of wallet software that 'locks' coins to an account or wallet (ie. locks them ultimately to an end user) which means they are not transferable until the account holder unlocks them.
Any reasonably designed bitcoin wallet (such as Armory, Bitcoin-Qt, Electrum, MultiBit, blockchain.info, BitcoinWallet, and Mycellium) all already do this. If you transfer your bitcoins to any such bitcoin wallet, they are "locked" until someone with access to the specific 256 bit password that locked the bitcoins (called a "private key" in cryptography) creates a digital signature authorizing the bitcoins to move again. This is the actual purpose of wallet software. Unfortunately, many people choose to give their bitcoins to someone else and hope that the person/company they give them to will honor their promise to secure and return the bitcoins in the future.
maybe i misunderstood how blockchain works exactly?
Almost cetainly.
the lock could be opened with a phone call/escrow like human to human system with verbal passwords (or whatever 2/3 factor level security desired by the user or that the company is prepared to offer
A phone call or email are far to easy to fake. I prefer the security of industry leading cryptography that requires an electronic message with a cryptographically secure digital signature. That way it is impossible to pretend to be me unless you can get your hands on my 256 bit password.
They need to be unchained from the user account to actually be used.
Yep.
Obviously this would only be appealing to hoaders/savers or people simply nervous about security who dont spend their BTC too fast or very often (for this type of user they could unlock one coin at a time as they need it, or have low level lock on them
Nah. With well written software that can instantly create digital signatures at the request of the user, the specific value of bitcoins that the user desires to spend could be released from the "lock" in an instant while all the other bitcoins remain securely locked. Furthermore, any bitcoins received could be automatically locked even if the software wasn't running. This is the power of well executed cryptography (and is the design of bitcoin).
It could be the shot in the arm the BTC world needs to get more mainstream support as it would really show how much safer it could be compared to fiat.
So, what you're saying is that bitcoin really needs more education. Well, I think everyone would agree with that, but how to educate new users who don't bother to try to learn anything, while providing convenience that won't stifle interest?
If this is a million dollar idea and you steal it to get rich, please send me some donations:)
1LCpoQBWJNaM6MhuVvnAnJcUUcZkSNY3xp
Since Satoshi is the one that implemented your million dollar idea, you'll have to hit him up for the donation (if you can find him).
Or if its just a noob rant then can someone explain to me why it doesnt work - technically speaking i mean
Technically it does work. It works really well. Unfortunately, it can't work for those users that choose to give their bitcoins to someone incompetent.
since the coins have unique ids
They don't.
and user accounts have unique ids why cant they just be locked together...?
They can. MtGox was just lazy and incompetent, and yet users chose to leave their bitcoins there anyhow.
Marketing wise, i think its a winning service that BTC holding companies (wallets, exchanges...) should offer
Agreed. Hopefully more companies that hold deposit accounts will implement better security protocols soon. In the mean time, we can vote with our bitcoins. Don't send your bitcoins to a company that doesn't provide you with a secure way to link your identity to your withdrawls.
even though it somewhat undermines BTC improvements over fiat for transmission processing speed etc
It doesn't. Computers are very fast, and well written software can generate a digital signature with a click (and perhaps a quick 2-factor authorization).
i think it would get a lot of mainstream attention.
The media doesn't bother paying attention to the details. They need to sell advertizing, which means they need to attract viewers. The easiest way to do that is to create sensationalist stories with little focus on facts and details. (most of the viewing public finds facts and details boring)
