It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.
Mainstream users will not use bitcoin if it becomes illegal. End of story. Maybe some people continue to use it but it'll probably be far below any drug usage levels.
>It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.
That's barely relevant because the "rich ruling classes" could still do it. I'm evaluating this as "what if they do" not "would they do"
The government doesn't have to make it impossible for cypherpunks and superhackers to use bitcoin, it just has to scare normal people. That's easily done with a few laws and some gratuitous enforcement, e.g., throw a few thousand people in jail for tax evasion, watch how long it takes for these casual hodlers to liquidate. That's 90% of the battle won, and 90% will probably be enough.
With drugs you had families ruined by drug addiction desperate for a solution.
With bitcoin you have... what? Unwavering respect for the right of governments to restrict something most people can identify has at least some utility?
The social consensus for a harsh crackdown is not there, and like the internet on issues with copyright, governments will continue to muddle along as this all evolves way quicker than they can deal with it (kind of like Uber).
You have a government losing its sovereignty over its own money supply, for all practical purposes. After being invaded, or losing territory due to an invasion, that's about as serious a threat as any on offer.