> I was always dispirited by how conservative in sentiment Bitcoin and most altcoins were. It always felt to me that Bitcoin was mostly redundant to gold, neglecting the inherent advantages of ecurrency. Something more ambitious deserves to be implemented.

There is a good reason Bitcoin is conservative: it has to be, by design. It's also what makes it attractive.

Also, you are completely wrong if you think that lack of ambition is the reason we don't have a cryptocurrency that doesn't neglect "the inherent advantages of ecurrency" by now. Lots of smart people, including esteemed computer scientists, have been thinking really hard about the subject for years and I find your comment a bit insulting towards them (I'll pass it off as ignorance on your part). I too really hope we can eventually come up with a better cryptocurrency but please don't assume people are not trying.

In the transactions I describe, inhibition is a two-sided transaction, meaning it requires approval from both parties. Presumably parties won't enter into such transactions without good reason for consent.

Given the number of people confused by it, I think perhaps it needs a different name ... my mind is blank when I attempt to come up with a better one, though.

Inhibition is a two-sided transaction, requiring the consent of both sides.