Again, I don't disagree with you.
Great. You asked 'What does Bitcoin provide that fiat does not?', I answered several aspects where Bitcoin has unique benefits over fiat, and you agree. So we can put that aside, right? You concede that Bitcoin provides at least some concrete benefits over fiat?
People need an alternative. Let me put it this way though. Say you're a middle-aged Cypriot taxi driver and the entire nation suddenly switches to Bitcoin. Now imagine you're the same Cypriot taxi driver and, six months later, Uber suddenly introduces a fleet of driver-less taxis and you're suddenly in the impossible position of competing with a machine. You find yourself unemployed. Maybe you can drive a bus instead? Except they've gone driver-less too.
Bitcoin has no impact upon this example job displacement one way or the other. At least I don't see how it does.
We should not be conflating general Luddite concerns (in the original sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) with Bitcoin. The overarching question of whether or not increasing technology will render some job loss is not Bitcoin's to solve.
If you wanted to conflate the two completely dissociated issues, you might have done well to use the exemplar of a banker or other pinstriped bandit from the financial services industry. At least these jobs might be directly affected by Bitcoin. Here is an industry that is completely parasitical in nature, that has through covert capture, come to control about 8% of the resources of modern economies (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization), with a coalescence of wealth far exceeding that operational share. If Cryptocurrencies truly disintermidiate finance, that would lead to one in twelve jobs being at risk.
But so what? Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe they can find more honorable employment as a street sweeper (OK, bad analogy given the obvious technological applications here), or mentoring underachieving youth.
Maybe you can work in one of the Bitcoin-related financial services organisations that will have sprung up to replace the banking industry? Chances are they'll be online/virtual too so probably not. You're just an 'ordinary' bloke so what do you do?
Why would the Cypriot ex-taxi driver be barred from an online job? To the contrary, online jobs open up employment to anyone anywhere in the world. One no longer needs to have the accident of geography of birth in order to work in the affected industries.
I mentioned a technological revolution. Just what do we do in the light of this? Create a bunch of fictional jobs out of thin air and have them suck resources out of businesses?
In a central planning sense? We do nothing. The Luddites had well-reasoned arguments as to why the industrial revolution would lead to widescale poverty. Looking back, we can see that all their reasoning amounted to nothing, as instead of widespread despair, the industrial revolution brought previously-unimaginable improvements in the standard of living across the entire world.
Turning the question around, if production is at a high enough level to meet the needs of the populace, then freeing up excess labor is a net benefit. If it does not take 2000 hours per year out of the life of each fit adult to sustain a good standard of living for all, why is this a bad thing?