> Where does this end in societies governed by the rule of law? Who can decide to opt-out or in?
I think individuals themselves should decide what is and isn't OK to spend money on. In such a world you rely on law enforcement doing actual work instead of using vague KYC, AML and Terrorism laws that are extremely obtuse.
Real criminals just use a middle man while regular citizens have to endure this insane regulatory environment without any benefit.
KYC/AML is just a waste of time, energy and manpower.
> That can also be achieved by mandating banks to offer accounts (as some countries have). So I put that down to a political failure.
What if you don't have a functioning banking sector? Or even a functioning government? You're just supposed to accept that you're not going to be able to participate in a global society?
> The ability for people in extreme situations to store value in something other than their governments currency. Think Lebanon, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, etc.
Sure, but most (if not all) of those things can be taken from you. Bitcoin can not. Of course, there's always the $5 wrench attack but relative to other assets, Bitcoin is superior in this regard. Even if it's just slightly better than other assets it's a win.
> Could be used like that, but so can normal money and incentives
Yes, but Bitcoin mining is a natural free market incentive to this problem, incentives and money is not.