I assume the idea is that a technology that, by definition, can only be used publicly faces a far different threat surface than nuclear proliferation.
A significantly powerful actor could exert sufficient force. Russia or the US threatening nuclear war over bitcoin would probably lead to a worldwide ban, although obviously the repercussions would be dramatic. More realistically, the US could state that any bank that does business with bitcoin isn't welcome to participate in the US economy. The US economy is big enough that such a threat might work. This is similar to how the embargoes against Iran worked, and why that Chinese executive is being extradited to the US from Canada.
In reality, if Bitcoin got the point of destabilization where the US felt the need to ban it, the effects would probably be widespread enough that the EU, Japan, the various Commonwealth countries would be convinced to take coordinated action.
A significantly powerful actor could exert sufficient force. Russia or the US threatening nuclear war over bitcoin would probably lead to a worldwide ban, although obviously the repercussions would be dramatic. More realistically, the US could state that any bank that does business with bitcoin isn't welcome to participate in the US economy. The US economy is big enough that such a threat might work. This is similar to how the embargoes against Iran worked, and why that Chinese executive is being extradited to the US from Canada.
In reality, if Bitcoin got the point of destabilization where the US felt the need to ban it, the effects would probably be widespread enough that the EU, Japan, the various Commonwealth countries would be convinced to take coordinated action.