It seems your opinion is that there is no need for bitcoin and that banks and arbitrary enforcements based on claims of thefts conducted by centralized controls of wealth ledgers are the way to go. This is fine for you. Others may want alternatives to this to exist in the world and use each type of wealth unit for its purpose.
No, the question is not whether we
need a P2P payment system that is not centralized.
The question is whether bitcoin
is such a system.
To me, it is already clear that it isn't, because it requires us to trust the 4-5 largest miners; in the same way that the banking system requires us to trust the few large banks that dominate it. I bet that you will see that too, eventually.
Generally, we disagree on most everything in this post, with especially your assumptions about what future behaviors will occur. These things haven't happened yet. With vigilance and individual action, these things may never happen because it is done in the open, and not in secret banking ledgers, as pointed out previously in my last post to you (which you apparently ignored).
It is you who keeps ignoring what I pointed out several times already: that a cartel of miners can take permanent control of the network in the open, with advance warning, and with the cooperation, approval, or indifference of most of the community. Just as a few large banks took permanent control of the banking system. If such a thing is possible, it will almost certainly happen, because of common human greed.
(By the way, have you checked the business career of Brock Pierce? I would not have imagined that "mining" and selling video game points could be a profitable business, much less that a single bilion-dollar company could monopolize that business all over the world. Some similarities to bitcoin are intriguing, e.g. the "game point mining farms" that were set up in China by Pierce's associates. I cannot stop wondering why he decided to buy his way into the Bitcoin Foundation's board...)