As far as I’m concerned, the largest modification of Bitcoin is made in law system compared with other facets of human society because governments of diversifies levels are legislating for Bitcoin, such as the constitution, civil law, criminal law, securities law, tax law, investment law and money-laundering law. In the past few centuries, no one single thing has ever incurred legislation from governments like Bitcoin in commercial civilization.
How about the emergence of computers and the Internet? Tons of laws had to be written or revised to account for them, too, so Bitcoin isn't unique here.
With underlying technology and mathematical algorithm, Bitcoin proves to be a just and decentralized currency. Every time human society attempts to ban Bitcoin, it comes back with fiercer strength. At last, what changed is human society and government, not Bitcoin. Human governments cannot prohibit Bitcoin, they adjust to it by making laws.
Whether a government can or cannot ban Bitcoin depends largely on two things: how democratic the country's regime is and how much people care about cryptos. If it's an authoritarian North Korea, Bitcoin can totally be banned there. If it's US, it's way harder to do something like this.
As we all know, law exists in all corners of human society, which would fall out-of-order and civilization would be out of the question without the restraint from laws. The consensus among different subjects in the contemporary civilization system are reached through the establishment and application of laws. Yes, law is for the restraint of human consensus. The changed law system because of Bitcoin indicates the fact that the consensus of human society is constantly changing as well. The birth of new consensus means the appearance of new human civilization. That process won’t get finished overnight and that’s irreversible.
The laws should be based on consensus, but they aren't. There's a very limited number of people who write the laws and then vote on them, and the way they vote doesn't always represent the stance of the population. For example, polls show that [ur=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-recreational-or-medical-use/l]91% of US citizens support legality of marijuana[/url], and yet it remains illegal on a federal level.