[dragonwriter]

> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party

No, it doesn't. Because it relies on validation by a number of third-parties (whose identities and degrees of influence are opaque), who must (collectively, if not individually) be trusted and who (again, collectively, though this can end up fairly narrowly concentrated) control the financial system in the same way as “Ted” in your hypothetical.

[darawk]

That's a silly argument. Bitcoin does not rely on validation by 3rd parties. It relies on validation by a large number of independent third parties who can only act in a way inconsistent with the rules of the system if a majority of them collude. And even then what they can do is very narrowly prescribed (a double spend attack, specifically). That is vastly different from trusting a single independent third party like a bank who has literally no restrictions whatsoever on what they can do unilaterally.

[b1daly]

Well, banks have tremendous restrictions on what they can do, in collusion, or unilaterally.

One very good reason for this high level of regulation is that banks are a primary component of the money supply system. Having a functional monetary system is a great thing, for the society as a whole.

It has aspects of being a public good. (Some people argue that banking should be made a government supplied service, for this reason.)

Almost every aspect of modern life is subject to laws and regulations, by a sovereign entity of some sort.

Such an entity has very valid reasons for regulating the use of bitcoin.

Even people using bartering systems have gotten in trouble with the IRS.