> First part of your argument - Isn’t this literally the argument against every new anything?

Oh, that wasn't meant to be an argument against something new. As I said repeatedly, it's an argument against BTC as it exists now and as it will be for the foreseeable future. The expectations for a stable "national" currency are incompatible with the pillars of BTC. That was my original point.

The Fed, the ECB, the Central Bank of China all have price stability and inflation as a mandate, of course for their own currency. And this should already hint that they want control over their national currency. Gold and other countries' currencies are explicitly things that are regulated by the respective countries and/or "relatively" stable. I'm not aware of any national currency as volatile as BTC. They're all substantially more more resilient to outside manipulation because they're regulated and traceable. Governments and Central Banks don't want their country or citizens to rely on a currency they don't have any control over especially in places like US, EU, China, Japan. Just think of the UK refusing to give up the GBP to adopt the EUR because it involved losing control of the currency. So while I can imagine a bank (central or commercial) holding BTC one day as an asset, I'm having a really hard time seeing the "unregulated currency BTC" being used as a "national currency" in any place that matters.

> If you think a central bank is going to hesitate to hold a useful asset for international exchange purposes if a ‘ceo or worse your enemy’ could send it spinning, you’re not paying attention?

If you were to ask Mario Draghi or Christine Lagarde they would tell you no CB should hold BTC. I'm not saying I can see the future but I'm trying to understand what you know and they don't.

When China deliberately weakened the yuan to gain an advantage in the trade war with US (to boost exports) it was immediately noticed and attributed and that could be (was?) used as justification for sanctions and tariffs. Bitcoin is decentralized and pseudo-anonymous.

> I’m saying Zimbabwe and many other places don’t really run on their local currency, they run on what people use (currently dollars in most cases, but some places BTC is getting traction) - because their gov’ts destroy the utility of the their local currencies and people can’t trust it.

So they rely on a well regulated currency like the USD. How would BTC improve on this? The USD is stable enough for Zimbabwe to use because it's under central control.

Taking more practical approach for the regular person, at the absolute minimum a currency is supposed to come with consumer protections that are derived from regulation. BTC was specifically designed to curtail regulations. This won't be fixed by faster or more efficient networks. That can't be "fixed" at all because it's one of BTC's tenets: stay unregulated and out of gov't control. So your citizens are not only using an unregulated currency that offers them no protections, they're also extremely vulnerable to outside manipulation.

BTC is an unstable coin, that cannot be regulated to offer consumer protections or complying with anti money laundering laws. In theory this recommends it to speculators and people who are looking to be shielded from the law. The reality just happens to match the theory to a T.

Some e-currency will surely fit the bill one day though but I'm not entirely sure if there's one to be both regulated and unregulated at the same time, to make everyone happy.