I will absolutely concede that a single jurisdiction cannot regulate Bitcoin to death. I'm concerned about usability from *my own* perspective, because I'm not going to change jurisdictions to be able to use Bitcoin. And if we look at it from that perspective, hashrate discussions are beside the point. It is much more relevant whether or not the vendor I want to transact with can accept my Bitcoin. If for regulatory reasons my vendors cannot accept my nonkyced self custodied sats (only cucked Bitcoin allowed) it isn't useful for me. It's easy to see a future where the dominant jurisdiction prevents users escaping to bitcoin through friction and regulation, not through outright bans. They stop it at the banking layer, not at the hash layer. And if there's a competing BRICS type jurisdiction, they have the same concern of users escaping into a neutral money. I don't understand why they would welcome Bitcoin and have positive Bitcoin regulation. Isnt it in EVERY states interest to block the on / off ramps? Let it exist as an economically insignificant, yet functioning, Network somewhere. Just not here.