2. Many people want consumer protections, but they'd probably, if asked, 'want' it for cash as well. And in fact, they do have them -- customer service, anti-fraud laws and criminal prosecution, small claims court and lawsuits. Those protections are necessary to, essentially, protect the consumer from the money transmitter. But in this case, the Bitcoin network exists, and provides a novel invention of something that can, through the use of keys and such, be transferred every bit as irrevocably as handing cash from one person to another -- and provide an excellent, public 'paper trail', which can act as proof of purchase/payment, as well.
So my point is, the world has changed, and it's very, very good that the old-world regulations aren't yet completely crushing that change.
Cash++ springs into being, and companies are being formed to add a user-friendly skin on top of this amazing Cash++ network, but endangered existing players want to make the barrier to entry for any company that taps into Cash++ be the onerous, $20mm bonds required of traditional money transmitters.
Sure, if BitCoin didn't exist, you'd have to do a lot of things yourself that the BitCoin network now makes trivial. But why should those companies be forced by law to pretend that BitCoin and its network don't exist? And don't have the properties that they have?
I don't think this is a good interpretation of the situation. Bitcoin does not natively provide anti money laundering which is one of the primary purposes of money transfer regulation. Bitcoin also doesn't provide consumer protections that many people want.