Governments and banks do not like it because it takes power away from them.
That's Bitcoin marketing and oversimplification at best. Banks can choose to trade in Bitcoin and many do but they have a lot more to loose and are bound by stricter regulations. Yes, even before there were fledgling laws around cryptocurrencies, most if not all regulated financial institutions have in house governance around high volatile trading which is where all major cryptocurrencies currently fall.
The reasons governments don't like it is due to decentralisation and (currently) reduced control but not for the reasons some may think. There is a huge and very reasonable concern around anti-financial crime which covers, bribery, transparency, tax evasion, criminal activities and terrorist financing just to name a few. Sticking it to "the man" by taking away government control? More like handing it to the unscrupulous. We're not just talking about the much publicized Silk Road and Dark Web stuff but the day to day actions that plague the existing cash based systems as well. Bitcoin and other highly valued cryptocurrencies currently just make it easier.
If BTC threatens the rich, that's when regulation might occur. The rich and the banks like the status quo just the way it is thank you very much.
Hardly, the rich have a far greater ability to speculate than the "common folk". You really think the rich aren't profiting nicely off this? Just look at Tesla. The banks didn't like it at first since many were late to the game but there are many reasons for that (one example above). Every major bank has a separate department for Private Wealth Banking for a reason, it's very profitable to serve the needs of very rich individuals.
I think a possible regulation for the US could enact would be to make BTC illegal to purchase goods (like a Tesla). You would always have to convert it to cash for a legal transaction of physical goods. The conversion to cash would be a taxable event. I do not think a law of this type would matter to the value of BTC. It might make BTC more valuable because now it would recognized and regulated to some extent.
Possibly, but it could introduce stabilisation which would erode the huge speculative spikes where financial institutions, large corporates and the privately wealthy like to make their gains. I'm not anti-crypto trading (or "investment" to some) but I dislike the mounds of misinformation surrounding it and motives from various sides.
How many people who hold Bitcoins because it's a decentralised currency that can make international transactions without the need to involve banks (only in theory, you currently still need to "cash" out)? Virtually zero. The value in Bitcoin is its perceived worth which is rocketing due to it's inflation over the years. It's not part of any infrastructure or really anything we need (blockchain as a technology is very useful but a different topic). As you've mentioned, it's practically useless as a form of regular or mass transaction.
Current cash (non-crypto) transactions, whether local or international are not truly "end-to-end" as the customers envisage it, even if the funds disappear from one account and appear in another a few seconds later. In many cases that's not where the transaction ends and there is a huge infrastructure behind that, cogs in the machine as it were. Verified and guaranteed transactions of this nature rely on bulking, repacking and settlement which is what any transaction fees go towards (and profit of course).
