From the unset, almost all he governments saw Bitcoin and cryptos in general as a threat. Forget those calms that they were used by criminals and gangs for ransom except you are telling me that criminals and ransom never existed until 2009. What is happening today is that many countries are  now trying  to find their way round since their earliest attempt to stop or ban crypto proved abortive. If they had their way and means, crypto would have been history long ago.

Governments like control and that includes control of your money and they met their albatoir in Bitcoin and other cryptos, eventually they hooked it on regulation as a way to monitor  and supervise what's going on.

Yeah, the religion plays no role in government interaction with Bitcoin. Bitcoin the big boy is a neutral, mathematical equation. Bitcoin protocols don't care about religion, borders politics and our beliefs. And thinking like politician mood or personality dictate crypto is dangerous. Like look above, Nigeria's law that president personality doesn't affect or block crypto transactions. They were blocked when massive amounts were taken out from banks, which gives the government the upper hand in tracking, freezing and control over the money. Governments usually regulate crypto to collect tax, prevent money laundering and monitor financial system. They also say these rules help reduce frauds, protect user and maintain financial stability. Some people believe another reason is to protect role of the traditional fiat system.

It's not new, because the government of Nigeria have always looked for an opportunity to exploit whichever sector they believe could generate them the most profit, and with regards to the drastic move of people's investments from Naira to Bitcoin over the years, and the fact that keeping your money in Bitcoin, it's safe and likewise you stand a better chance of having it increase value over time. The government have always seen it as an opportunity to be taxed. But the beautiful thing about Bitcoin is the fact that nobody has control over it, and it is independent on its own. And for that very reason the Nigerian government can only mention it's intended tax to companies intending to offer it's p2p services in Nigeria. Because apart from that. Bitcoin is independent.

"All those laws does and will not affect Bitcoin"  I could not fully accept this statement. The Bitcoin network and people's use of Bitcoin are two different things. It is not possible to stop Bitcoin mining and blockchains according to any government rules and regulations, but the government can ban exchanges if it wants. And the government's strict policies and various negative decisions will reduce the acceptance among people. In this case, those who do not understand Bitcoin, those who were new to Bitcoin may lose interest. If the government approves Bitcoin or if it does not approve it, if it creates a positive rules regulation, the acceptance of Bitcoin will also increase. And I thought that even if the government takes a stand against Bitcoin, the popularity of Bitcoin will continue to increase, but it will take a little more time. And if the government decides to impose  tax on Bitcoin, they may naturally want to keep its use within a controlled framework by verifying identities and monitoring transactions. In this case, the original purpose of Bitcoin , the decentralized nature will not be okay. The government cannot easily control the Bitcoin protocol, but I think it can significantly negatively affect the privacy, cost and acceptance environment of Bitcoin users. But if the government approves it for good reasons, like normal currency, then the matter will be different.

Yes, it's true that the view of governments on Bitcoin has shifted over time, but I'll need to call your attention to one fact: regulation is different from adoption. Classifying Bitcoin as property, a commodity, or another asset type doesn't necessarily mean a government is against it. It often determines how it's taxed and regulated.
Prior decisions in regions like Nigeria limited banks' involvement with crypto, but they didn't ban Bitcoin ownership or peer-to-peer trading. The US itself has generally treated Bitcoin as property for tax purposes while also allowing institutional products like spot ETFs.
What these scenarios demonstrate in my opinion, is that regulation is more about integrating Bitcoin into existing financial structures rather than trying to eliminate it. We're moving towards having clear regulatory frameworks for crypto. The long term expectation: institutional trust and adoption

They are centralized and will be always centralized whereas Bitcoin blockchain is decentralized, so it's unrealistic to hope that governments will prefer to provide good conditions for Bitcoin to grow up more. They consider Bitcoin as threats to their centralized and censored financial systems, so that they know what they need to do for decelerating Bitcoin adoption growth.

They only have been forced to change their systems and legalize Bitcoin when it was strong enough and citizens will vote the leading party out if their governments want to kill Bitcoin. Fortunately, around the world the majority of nations have democracy than dictatorship so the general global political status gives Bitcoin great opportunities to grow more.

Stacking more satoshis,  more bitcoins, holding them in secure non custodial wallets are what we have to do to secure our wealth against inflationary issues of fiat currency.
The purchasing power of satoshis/ bitcoins has increased strongly over time, and it's big mistake if we waste very great opportunity Satoshi Nakamoto gave us.
https://charts.bitbo.io/satoshi-per-dollar/

In Brazil, the current government views it as a way to line its own pockets. Unfortunately, there are no incentives when it comes to cryptocurrencies, and the laws and regulations remain flawed, creating uncertainty among those who hold such investments.

From my perspective, the government’s collection of taxes on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is not an issue I need to complain about. This demonstrates that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are not criminal tools, as some negative claims suggest. The taxes the government imposes on exchanges for every transaction I make also benefit all the infrastructure I use in my daily life. The tax rates currently in effect for us in our country are still within reasonable limits—unless they set the rate as high as 50% of the transaction amount. That would be unreasonable.

The government can only adopt bitcoin but they can't regulate it, you seem to have forgotten that regulating means having full control over bitcoin. But the decentralized nature of bitcoin makes it difficult for the government to regulate or even have control over bitcoin. However, even though nigerian government have not accept bitcoin or make it a legal tender yet There are people, company and or business men who are making use of bitcoin just like you and I. The truth is that most of those wealthy nigerian Investors are not even interested to invest in bitcoin because if they do, they wouldn't wait for the government to adopt bitcoin before they will think of investing in it.