> I don't think we can assume that growth in demand is strictly due to people who want to use it as a store of value. Incorrect. The only way that the _lowest_

> I don't think we can assume that growth in demand is strictly due to people who want to use it as a store of value. Incorrect. The only way that the _lowest_ value of bitcoin continues to increase significantly each halving epoch is that more and more value is being stored in it long term. > True, but they can make it difficult for people to use it, and penalize people who are found to be using it. That doesn't mean no one will use it, or that no one will get value out of it, but it does mean that it would be marginalized and of limited use to most people. They can't penalise people for using it as it would be unlawful/unconstitutional to do so. Sure, they can _slow down_ the adoption in their country through various underhand means like allowing the banking system to prevent people from sending their own money to exchanges, and capital "gains" taxes but they can't control the network itself. People in other countries without an oppressive regime will be unaffected (and will thrive as a result of having better access to a better store-of-value).