and in the case of bitcoin, it is impossible for the governments to regulate it.

Maybe? I think that remains to be seen because governments have only relatively recently taken crypto seriously enough to care.

There's also the problem that most people (even most people using crypto) want some degree of regulation, so it's likely that regulated crypto will outpace the growth of unregulated crypto at least in the forseeable future.

I'm talking about the bitcoin network, not some government-controlled representative tokens. Government-controlled tokens (i.e. fiat currency) is why bitcoin was invented in the first place. And the growth in demand for bitcoin is evidence of what people want.

The government cannot control the bitcoin network. They can either choose to embrace it or not.

> And the growth in demand for bitcoin is evidence of what people want.

I don't think we can support that claim. Growth in demand can mean a lot of things. Since Bitcoin is still largely driven by speculators (not to mention scammers), I don't think we can assume that growth in demand is strictly due to people who want to use it as a store of value, or as a currency.

> The government cannot control the bitcoin network.

True, but they can make it difficult for people to use it, and penalize people who are found to be using it. That doesn't mean no one will use it, or that no one will get value out of it, but it does mean that it would be marginalized and of limited use to most people.

> I don't think we can assume that growth in demand is strictly due to people who want to use it as a store of value.

Incorrect. The only way that the _lowest_ value of bitcoin continues to increase significantly each halving epoch is that more and more value is being stored in it long term.

> True, but they can make it difficult for people to use it, and penalize people who are found to be using it. That doesn't mean no one will use it, or that no one will get value out of it, but it does mean that it would be marginalized and of limited use to most people.

They can't penalise people for using it as it would be unlawful/unconstitutional to do so. Sure, they can _slow down_ the adoption in their country through various underhand means like allowing the banking system to prevent people from sending their own money to exchanges, and capital "gains" taxes but they can't control the network itself.

People in other countries who don't have an oppressive regime will be unaffected (and will thrive as a result of having better access to a better store-of-value).

As long as you are physically residing in and doing things within the jurisdiction of a government, that government can regulate what you do.

Depending on the activity, their effectiveness at doing so will of course vary. But governments can absolutely ban Bitcoin and (especially) mining, and that will greatly reduce the usefulness of Bitcoin for people, even if they can't fully stamp it out.

In the UK at least, the government only has authority to execute legislation. And parliament only has authority to create legislation.

If the legislation they create is not lawful then it can't be enforced in the courts as doing so would be inherently unjust.

Hashing data and purchasing electricity obtained from approved sources have never been shown to be (and unlikely ever will be) unlawful activities.

And yet, if governments want to ban it, they are free to do so. Enforcement won't always be simple, but e.g. shutting down exchanges that let you convert Bitcoin into local currency will definitely hurt.