you CANNOT regulate beer, people will always find ways to create and consume and swap beer with others.
you CAN regulate PEOPLE/BUSINESSES use of beer. in which if caught people/businesses could end up with fines.
but in short beer will continue to be made no matter what.
take the 1920's alcohol prohibition(regulation) for instance(moonshiners/gentlemens clubs era)
now swap the word beer for bitcoin and you will understand
government regulation is not a bitcoin threat. what is a threat is a development control of the code reference. which if too many people only follow one reference point of the code. the network becomes centralised. (spoiler: already happening)
yes the data is distributed, yes the private key holding is distributed, but the decision of code upgrade becomes centralised around a core team.
distrubuted vs decentralisd are 2 different things altogether
and if then that development is moving away from the 2009-2013 ethos of bitcoin, to move people away from bitcoin and instead into other networks. then that is the threat. (sorry cant innovate beer anymore there are limits, but try this potato vodka instead)
governments dont see bitcoin as an economic threat. to them bitcoins are just assets. like iphones or beer. if you buy a bitcoin/iphone/beer its stil moving FIAT from your account to the fiat bank account of a bitcoin/iphone/beer seller.
governments have laws that keep fiat in play, minimum wage, tax, court fines, etc. so fiat is not at risk to governments.
if you are american you still have to pay american taxes in american dollars.
if you dont pay taxes but are seen living a lifestyle of someone having income that should be paying taxes you will be fined in american dollars.. the government will still get their fiat. on way or another
in short unless minimum wage/tax law changes, the government dont care what you buy as long as you get paid the amounts that allow them to tax you, it dont matter if its bitcoin, euro, or moondust.
governments do not care about economic impact. the reason for regulation is to make more income via licences. as its free money for them while making businesses police the businesses customers.. in short government gets free money and makes a business do the work
governments pretend that regulations are about consumer protection. yet most regulations are about policing customers by investigating customers. not supporting customers. if governments cared about protecting customers. then they would not push for regulatory licences. but instead consumer protection insurances.
regulation vs consumer protection are 2 separate things.
take the housing crisis. banks were regulated. but mortgage holders lost out. banks gained. bankers did not get slapped, they got rewarded. mortgage holders not only lost a shelter but the funds they put into that shelter initially.
that is true, and what is their right if they forbid the happiness and success of others for this