I feel there’s some false impression and combination of ideas right here:
To begin with, the concept of “risk” to BTC has a number of layers. No entity can fully destroy BTC identical to no entity may ever actually destroy something. Similar to trendy govs didn’t finish medication, or 1700s govs didn’t finish homosexuality. So clearly governments cannot “finish” BTC.
So by way of threats, there’s 2 predominant varieties in my view:
Worth risk (actions that make worth drop aggressively)
Irrelevance risk (actions that trigger BTC to vanish into obscurity)
The primary, the federal government has loads of energy to do. Certain, make it unlawful shut down exchanges and seize each mining tools in US soil (or no matter gov you wanna discuss). It will not destroy BTC, however it could damage worth enormously.
2) The second is harder as a result of it both occurs since you make it so area of interest it dies in that area of interest (the actions above by a selective variety of govs may possibly obtain that), or it requires the consent of the customers. In this type of risk, I feel the largest one to BTC just isn’t govs, however our general notion of the local weather influence of BTC vitality consumption. I do know local weather change deniers and crypto fanatic Venn diagram has a reasonably large center space, however no matter one individually would possibly assume local weather change is actual and BTC influence on it’s more likely to solely develop (the arguments about BTC and clear vitality/ wasted vitality are bullshit, any non biased engineer can see that). Which suggests that there’s a probability that a big share of the inhabitants would possibly select to keep away from BTC due to it is influence.
So I might say by way of threats, BTC has 2 threats: The governmental monetary risk, which is govs skill to make worth dump horrendously with their insurance policies (I do not assume that is a selected related threat to be sincere), and irrelevance risk, which is the opportunity of a future during which the inhabitants explicitly refuses BTC due to it is vitality consumption. I feel it is a a lot far more practical risk to BTC long run than some other.