Ahh ok good question I didn't really flesh that out.
>"Why do you think tor is going to 'inevitably win'?"
Not just tor, but p2p in general. Basically the theory is that, as a species, we're used to few-source/many-sink communications networks.
We've been using them from the printing-press all the way up to DVDs. The internet & its "many-source" capabilities represents a threat to the prior (and existing) information-source monopolies...such as any media industries, national-banks, or governments.
A great way not completely lose control of information dissemination is to control the paths information must take.
Two great examples of threatening p2p protocols are Tor and the distributed bitcoin-ledger. Taken in conjunction with "criminal activity" historically being the way to demonize most cutting-edge tech when it challenges the status-quo, and a pattern starts to present itself.
To answer your question: I think our regulators are being reactionary Luddites & that p2p is sort of the spirit of what's driving this whole internet-thing...otherwise it would be interactive television.
i understand your sentiments, but i think the p2p model is never going to become so mainstream that they take over the equivalent centralised model. The reason being that "normal" people prefer ease and convenience.
The internet is practically already interactive television! very few people create and host, compared to the number of consumers.
> The reason being that "normal" people prefer ease and convenience
You're assuming we can't build a p2p network that is faster and better than the centralized ones we have today. People will eventually choose p2p because it brings them more ease and convenience.
Kudos to Italy for betting on the horse that will inevitably win.