...that is also declared "money" by fiat, exactly the same as paper money. It has value because we say it has value. That's not the interesting property.
The interesting property of cryptocurrencies is that the supply of money is constricted and can't be manipulated by any nation's central bank.
I don't understand how people believe this is a good thing (not implying you do specifically). One of the leading factors in the economic recovery following the 2008 crisis was Quantitative Easing and expansionary policies by the fed. Without these tools at the government's disposal, if there was another credit crisis, the effects would almost certainly be much worse and prolonged.
Like any tool, sure, it can be abused. But getting rid of it entirely by switching to a decentralized ledger (ignoring the reality that total decentralization seems infeasible), eliminates the very tangible benefits of having a central bank.
It's probably the same people who think that the Gold Standard was a fantastic thing and abandoning it was the worst thing ever.
I think you're arguing on the side of "countries need monarchies because the people can't be trusted" and "printing presses allow seditious ideas to spread and must be outlawed or tightly controlled", but, again, I can't be certain.
How is it that we can have two totally different interpretations of the truth? Isn't economics a science? Why is it that there are such varying opinions? I think it's because economies are too complex for any one person to accurately model. What you need is markets to decide what works and what's valuable and what the prices should be. What you need is competition, and that's what cryptocurrencies provide.
Bitcoin is already competing with weak currencies of corrupt governments and winning. A lot of improvements need to be made before Bitcoin is anywhere close to making a run for the #1 currency in the world, but if you're watching the technology closely, there's still a lot happening in crypto and it might be sooner than you think.
Hard to imagine how you reached that conclusion from what I wrote.
I do somewhat agree that having the precedent of a prior bailout might encourage some potentially stupid behaviour that might not otherwise be considered. The alternative, however, is much worse (in my opinion). The point isn't to keep Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or whoever in business, the point is to make sure that the rest of the country doesn't lose their entire life savings because of one recession. If the cost of economic stability is propping up a few rich people, it's probably worth it considering the alternative. Of course, I'm sure the anarcho-captilist blockchain experts might feel differently.