No. I'm saying there is demand for a global currency, and that regulation is inherently centralised, and therefore a global currency can't be regulated. A government may well succeed in creating a regulated crypto-currency, but that won't kill Bitcoin because it won't be accepted in parts of the world that don't trust the government that created it.

(I don't really hate regulation myself, by the way. I think it will happen to Bitcoin, but as a layer on top, not as part of the core protocol. Each government will regulate how bitcoin are converted to the local fiat, for example. Exchanges are already subject to "know your customer" laws, and they might be required to carry insurance against loss. Local regulations, different in each country, and there will always be countries that allow unregulated exchanges so it will always be optional.)

As I already explained, the more miners switch to the new currency, the more profit is made by the ones that don't switch. So profits will keep some mining Bitcoin, as long as the currency itself has value. If Bitcoin fails, miners switching will be a symptom, not a cause.

That's why I think you have this backwards. A government-backed crypto-currency would be a threat in the same way that an Amazon-backed one would be. Nothing to do with regulation or deep pockets to bribe miners with, just people believing that the new coins would be more spendable. If the users switch, the miners will follow.

Miners don't influence users much. People don't prefer Bitcoin because it has more miners. The influence goes the other way. Miners are paid in the coin they are mining, so if the currency is worthless (because no users) the miners won't bother with it. They might mine a few if they think it might become valuable later, but that's speculation. We've seen time after time that having miners is not enough to guarantee an alt-coin success, because it's not the miners who create the value. It's the users.