Is it necessarily a contradiction for someone to like what, in general, gives Bitcoin its censorship resistant, regulatory arbitraging properties when it is applied to certain areas, but also for them to be in support of trying to regulate its use in other areas, where, say, people are using it to avoid regulations to make running scams easier? I mean, it's clearly the case that once you have actual names attached to something, like many of these ICOs, that just because the Bitcoin (or Ethereum) system can't easily be shut down doesn't mean anything in terms of protecting known ICO scam creators from being put in jail. I don't see pointing that out and supporting that as "ratting out on all of us".

Just because bitcoins can be used by scammers (or even terrorists) doesn't necessitate that we should be against bitcoin, but it *also* doesn't necessitate that we should be against trying to stop scammers (or terrorists) that use bitcoin. Chris knows that the SEC can't stop Bitcoin, but he also knows that they very well could stop a number of these ICO scams.