There is nothing bad about regulation of Bitcoin, but it`s hardly possible. I can see they ask to pay some taxes from crypto profits, but regulation?
you laugh, but regulation includes the prospect of prohibiting bitcoin mining, bitcoin services and cryptocurrency payments entirely. people laugh and say "that's not possible, derp!" sure, the state can't realistically censor all network traffic on all blockchains in their jurisdiction. but
as eric voskuil eloquently points out:
how do you think things will unfold once the global ban on mining and transacting in Bitcoin takes hold? A hash power drop to almost nothing, all online exchanges, web wallets, meatspace merchants, merchant services/APIs and bank interactions shuttered.
let's be realistic. the internet doesn't run on decentralized mesh networks. businesses with global reach and massive mainstream growth potential =/= banking pariahs (like bitfinex) set up in the BVI or antigua.
bitcoin exchanges, merchants/payment processors, wallet services, etc. are highly dependent on favorable regulation. the lack thereof means shuttering their businesses or setting up shop in pariah countries (limiting growth). a global ban on mining could cripple the hash rate, threatening the network's security.
voskuil went on to discuss how the state's inability to destroy bitcoin is not enough to guarantee its relevance and mainstream adoption:
Like gold, bitcoin cannot be eliminated. But despite its existence the people of the world (including Indians) primarily use state money. The seizure of gold and outlawing of its contracting in the US was quite a successful operation. Those who used gold became black market.
