1) When gov. has the ability to print money "out of air" then is gives it a huge advantage, why give it up (because you cant do it with bitcoin)... Why should gov. give it up with BTC?
2) Wouldnt mass adoption of BTC (at least in western world) quite destroy the hole idea of banks and their fractional reserve banking mechanism...? There is a rumour that banks control a lot of whats going on, would they really be in favour of something that might kill them?
3) Smaller one: If BTC was designed really this way from the begging to allow a mass adoption, would it be more likely they would make a bigger cap than just 21 milinon coins...? Because paying for something with 0,0001 BTC on a daily basis just doesnt seem very handy or usefull.
1) "Government" is just a bunch of people with varying agendas. Any conspiracy of people, some of whom have government jobs, is not an act of "government" but an act of those people. Some people with government jobs are pro-fiat. Some people with government jobs are anti-fiat. This is an exit strategy, to deal with the mathematically inevitable eventual failure of fiat. As such, it is (1) a clever conspiracy for self-interest and (2) excellent government policy, protecting against a threat to society.
2) Banks are like government, an interlocking collection of communities of interest. The boards and officers of money-center banks would mostly be opposed to bitcoin, but that does not mean that forward thinking groups within government have their interests aligned with the boards of money-center banks. In fact, the latter is quite incredibly unlikely.
3) Get this PLEASE. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible. The BTC money supply is INFINITE. Stop the whole 21mln meme before it deludes everyone further. Unit bias is a psychological fallacy, and purely an issue of user interface.