So TCP/IP needed to get approval from the "regulators" before it was widely adopted?
Then the bitcoin protocol may not be all it is cracked up to be .... if Erik Vorhees is correct that bitcoin needs the crutch of state approval in order to get widely adopted, then I would say it is deficient as a technology and not fit for purpose .... bring on bitcoin2.0. (Holy Trinity should be nimble for the crypto-currency 2G will be life threatening for them.)
You do a disservice to everyone when you characterize my argument so poorly.
Bitcoin does not "need the crutch of state approval" in order to get widely adopted. And I'm not advocating that
bitcoin get state anything.
But those companies which interface Bitcoin with the old world of money will simply be shut down if they do not comply. You understand this? Not every bitcoin company needs to run out and get licensing, but those which are explicitly handling fiat money and fiat accounts must absolutely comply, else they'll be destroyed the moment they try to scale into anything meaningful.
Bitcoin companies that deal with fiat are different than bitcoin itself. The former must follow the rules or be closed (this is a fact, sad though it may be). The latter, Bitcoin itself, doesn't have to care at all about regulation, because it transcends it.
Do you see the difference?