Perhaps the argument I left in a different comment will illustrate why inflationary currencies are preferable. Please note that by inflationary I don't mean high inflation, I mean small, controlled, inflation.

> You should use a money that loses value because its purpose is as a medium of exchange and not a store of value. You need to have something in your life that you can reliably use to acquire things you need and exchange them for things you have (new laptop for hours worked). You want a hot potato, you get it, you pass it along to someone else. If you don't want to spend it on material goods and want to save, that's fine, you can instead "buy" a savings, or "buy" an index fund. You're still passing the hot potato around, but it's giving you different things.

Now think of this on a large scale. You want hot potatoes going around. That means they'll be moving at a reasonably fast pace, changing hands and going places. You need your money to move so that it reaches all parts and doesn't stagnate places. That's not to say that savings, like the type you'd do at a bank, are bad for the economy, but that is to say that if everyone were to save a bunch of money under a mattress, that would be bad. That would mean that a solid chunk of currency in the economy is frozen and effectively useless to everyone but its owner until they decide to take it out and spend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Historical_examples should give you some other examples of situations in which economies have been in deflation.

Again, controlled small inflation is the goal. Yes, this can, in the wrong hands, turn into too much inflation, but this is the same the other way too. These are not static states; they're highly dynamic systems that can spin out of control in either direction. And all things considered, it's easier to deal with high inflation than it is to deal with high deflation. It's playing with fire, but there is no other way, and if you find such a way, I and many others would be rather interested in hearing it.

Something to consider: economists' study, learn theory, and perform controlled experiments so that we can learn about these things. These are not unknowable truths of the economy that we can only roll the die and see what happens. And something that is often not considered by hard currency supporters is the results if things turn sour.

After all, you can have years upon years of nice solid performance of an economy built on whatever, for any sort of reasons, but the true assessment of that whatever as a means to serve as the currency for a nation, is how it performs under stress. Our modern fiat currencies and the ways we control them have been built on the ruins of previous methods and currencies. These ruins are costly and violent to a nations progress. This is not something you want to "wait and see". So instead of just thinking about the functions of bitcoin "during the day", while things are normal and people are behaving well, think also about that same currency at night. Think about what may happen if some exogenous shock hits the economy (not related to the currency itself), think oil embargo in the 70s. How will your economy deal with that? What are the tools at the government's disposal to get the economy repaired and back on track? Do they have any recourse? Do they have to just wait it out? This is beyond human lives at risk, this is human progress, human time.

Therefore, it's not about what people like, it's about what keeps the whole system as successful as possible for as long as possible. Economic systems are complex and unintuitive beasts, this is not an area that benefits from great civilian oversight and control. If your system works amazing for 20 years but then has a horrendous crash that wipes 10 years off of your progress, how good was it really?