You're just making stuff up to suit your argument. There is no evidence that BTC will ever be stable. The very nature of it's inability to be centrally regulated will guarantee that it can never be stable. Regulation is a stabilising force, it's why prosperous, healthy and wealthy countries all have the most regulations. Don't get caught in the Tea Party anarchist hype. If you want anarchy go take a holiday in Mogadishu or Kabul and then come back and tell us how well that works out.
What a ridiculous load of nonsense. Firstly, I'm not making stuff up to suit my argument. There really have been periods of stability. For instance I remember that when Bitcoin was at about $5 it stayed there for around 6 months or so, iirc, and after that it spent another six months floating around $10-$12 mark, which is the sort of volatility associated with national currencies. The reason is that back then it wasn't in the media much, governments weren't paying attention and so on. When I argue that in future it will be stable again, it's an argument based on both common sense and historical experience.
Regulation is a stabilising force? Regulation is an ossifying force. If you confuse "stagnant " with "stable" then it might superficially appear that way, but all it really does is lock in the status quo. The global recession of 2008 started in America, it was triggered by subprime US housing loans, and the USA has probably the most heavily regulated financial sector in the entire world. It's also got one of the most backwards. The USA still uses cheques, it still uses 1970's era magstripe credit cards, most online banks don't even seem to use two-factor authentication, internal wire transfers take days and are not free: all these things are commonplace outside the USA. If regulation is so great, why is the financial system in the USA such a mess despite vast, sprawling financial regulatory bureaucracies?
Finally, your belief that I'm a tea-partier is hilarious. I'm not even American. I think the tea party are a bunch of nutters. They're certainly not for small government, that would require them to heavily slash military spending, something they are very visibly not doing. I certainly don't want to live in Somalia. However Somalia's problem is not lack of financial regulation (there aren't even any banks there), it's very recent and massive wars that wrecked any semblence of civilisation.
In fact, it's funny you bring up Somalia, because badly thought out financial regulations (around making bankers liable for the crimes of their account holders regardless of whether the bankers knew anything) are about to start killing large numbers of innocent Somalis. Somalia relies heavily on the diaspora sending back money to their families, in particular from the UK. Many of those families use money from family members who work abroad to buy food. British banks have all terminated the accounts of money transmitting firms who send money into Somalia because they're afraid the US government will accuse them of aiding al Shabab. Barclays was the last bank to allow these companies to have an account, and the threat of the Somali diaspora being cut off from their families was so great that 45 MP's wrote to Barclay's, begging them to not comply with the governments own financial regulations! Barclays didn't listen of course, nor would you if you faced jail sentences for the actions of account-holders-of-account-holders, and a UK court had to force them to keep the accounts open via injunctions. God knows how that will play out.