Mike wrote:
... Obama would like to restrict guns, but can't, because they are too
popular (in the USA).
... Governments tolerate this sort of abuse [black markets] only because
they believe, I think correctly, that Bitcoin can have great benefits for
their ordinary voters and for now are willing to let the tech industry
experiment.

Those two reasons must be recognized for their differences.  What does it
mean that something is "too popular" if the ultimate goal of government is
"great benefits for their ordinary voters"?  It means the government
assumes that some things are bad for people even though they are popular.
Crystal meth and heroin come to mind.  This is a natural concern of all
decent parents for their children, and the reason that cultures for
millennia have had rites of passage, wherein the child takes on the
responsibility of determining for him or her self whether or not a popular
thing provides great benefits.  That responsibility is the birthright of
every human being. Why is there an institution that usurps it?  How do the
people within that institution benefit from being part of it?

Some history to study and answer these questions includes:

   - The origination of public schooling as motivated by Johann Fichte's
   public letters to his king in response to Prussia's loss to Napolean at
   Jena.
   - Franz Oppenheimer's book, The State, tracing the origination of the
   idea of a state, or group of people who make up and enforce laws.
   - Carroll Quigley's history book, Tragedy and Hope.
   - Larken Rose's book, Kicking the Dragon.
   - The Republic, by Plato, but only once you understand those other books.
   - If you want a shortcut, John Taylor Gatto did a five-hour interview
   which is now titled "The Ultimate History Lesson with John Taylor Gatto."
   It is heavily sourced by its producer in case anyone wants to verify the
   information he provides.

I'm "notplato" for a reason.

notplato