Disagree, due to the fact that the government being able to censor transactions of the government's choosing means that the government is able to censor transactions of the government's choosing. That's not a good thing.
> I want my currency to be subject to "government coercion" when the courts say so.
I would agree with this if and only if the protections of the law were equally applied, and all people had equal access to due process. Presently, both of those things are entirely untrue in most large, developed countries, despite being aspirational/stated goals.
The legal system can and does entirely fail people on a regular basis, and should not have the ultimate veto power over every type of private property, as has been the case historically.
> I for one do want the government to be able too regulate, control and trace transactions.
Many of us feel that freedom of association and freedom of trade with those associations are inherent natural rights, and such regulation or control over them is an illegitimate infringement upon them, regardless of however many democratically-elected representatives say they're not.
Ultimately the state's authority to do such things ("regulate, control") is based on the application of violence, or the threat of same. Violence cannot solve math problems, ergo, cryptocurrencies are a fundamental threat to the authority and existence of the state.
Honestly, I'm completely surprised that they've allowed them to get as big as they have without banning them outright.