Because many encryption currency all used for money laundering and other illegal crime, so each country according to its own situation to take certain measures to limit encryption currency is normal, but banning bitcoin countries most of them are silly.
I dont think its normal to limit cryptocurrency due to its use in some illegal actions, it is normal to search for the criminals ( you dont ban cars because they were used in a bank robbery).
In another thread in this very sub-forum people are asking if we can discuss with government to make sure crytpocurrencies are legally recognised. Here we there is complaint that they have been regulated.
Legal recognition means regulations. What is that the community want? Recognition with regulation or non-recognition with no regulation. You cannot have both, and existing laws and regulations will still apply anyway.
BTW that guy getting jailed, was because he didnt follow the law on money laundering. It wasnt because he was trading bitcoin, but because he didnt ask for ID as required to for *any* transaction over certain amount. If he'd been trading other items of value he'd would have been jailed for not complying too.
No regulation doesnt mean non-recognition ( if I dont have a law stating that yellow dogs are alowed to enter the city => yellow dogs can still enter the city ).
Could you detail a bit on money laundering thing, is it legally necessary to ask for ID for ANY transaction over a certain amount? And what precise amount, if you are aware?