> This isn't Congress doing the "regulating".

Actually, it is Congress. Specifically, the Court ruled that the use of bitcoins for the transactions at issue does not (as the defendant attempted to argue) cause them to fall outside the scope of the Exchange Act of 1934.

It's the executive branch enforcing regulatory laws duly passed by Congress.

It strikes many, me included, as an overreach of executive power.

Then vote in Representatives who agree with you, instead of claiming that the government has no authority. They now have the authority, they were given it by the legislature, which is in the legislature's power to do. If you want the executive to not have the authority then you must have the legislature take it back. But simply claiming that the government doesn't have the authority just because you wish they would not have the authority, doesn't actually make it so.

When government loses consent of the governed, it no longer has authority to govern. That won't stop those that believe themselves fit to rule from ruling if they have the power to do so.

As I had to explain the difference between lunch and arbitrary use of government power, do I also have to explain the difference between government of consent and tyranny?

Another great example of how discussing politics on HN is frustrating. You started out with an observation that the executive branch had overreached. It was pointed out that they were delegated this power explicitly by the legislature. Now your argument changes, without acknowledging the correction or the error of your previous comment, and, as usual, it shifts to something too nebulous to discuss.

It's not your fault; this is just a really terrible venue for political discussions.

Or perhaps it's indicative of the many abuses of authority that emanate from government?

No, you missed the point entirely. It's indicative of the slippery slope you encounter when discussing politics on a tech news forum like this at critical mass.