I think you're inverting the causation. Of course things that most people do most of the time would not be illegal, those laws would be very difficult to introduce and sustain politically.
> especially ones that can get them into serious trouble
It's not enough for a law to carry a heavy penalty, people have to believe they can/will get caught and the penalty will apply to them. Which is true for robbery and capital murder but not so with drug use, capital controls, porn bans (click here if you're 18), copyright, etc.
> Laws matter.
Only if someone has the ability, will, and the resources to consistently enforce them. Which is to say, they would not matter in third-world countries with mismanaged economies where people need to break the law to buy BTC/USD.
It's true for drug use as well, but that's not the point. The point is laws do deter, they don't prevent everyone, but they can easily kill mass adoption of anything. You can try to skirt around that all you like, but it's true none the less. Bitcoin is not special in this regard, if the US outlawed it, mass adoption would not be an option. And no, you don't need consistent enforcement of laws to make them intimidating, selective enforcement does that too.
I think you're inverting the causation. Of course things that most people do most of the time would not be illegal, those laws would be very difficult to introduce and sustain politically.
> especially ones that can get them into serious trouble
It's not enough for a law to carry a heavy penalty, people have to believe they can/will get caught and the penalty will apply to them. Which is true for robbery and capital murder but not so with drug use, capital controls, porn bans (click here if you're 18), copyright, etc.
> Laws matter.
Only if someone has the ability, will, and the resources to consistently enforce them. Which is to say, they would not matter in third-world countries with mismanaged economies where people need to break the law to buy BTC/USD.