Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation. Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.
But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya.
"It is a lot like M-Pesa, but offers the benefit of not being able to be rolled back or controlled by a central party". They might not immediately see the benefit of the latter, and I don't particularly care to force the issue. Adoption -- at least lacking some catalyzing crisis -- does not subsume from the center. It occurs at the margins. Patience, grasshopper.
In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"
None of that shit matters to an end user. My above point is enough.
The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?
Because M-Pesa was right place right time with a distribution network that was already in place with a captive customer base, and an advertising budget.