This is a key point. Growth is a function of advances in technology, management, etc. and in its natural state needs have nothing to do with the monetary system. What state-money has done is to create artificially fast growth, during the inflationary phase of the asset bubble. We are incentivized to buy things we don't really need. When the asset bubble eventually crashes, we have economic pain.
...the problem with a limited-supply monetary system is that it heavily interferes with the economic growth. Basically, money should make economic relationships easier or, at the very least, not stand in the way. However, a limited-supply currency takes away some percentage of economic growth as it rewards holders for just holding that currency.
But if you reward someone, you should necessarily take from someone else. There is no free lunch. In this case you take some share of the revenue from producers who are actually doing something useful and give it to someone who doesn't do anything productive, who does nothing apart from sitting on their money. Why should they get rewarded?
I think you have it backwards. You first define an elite-controlled money supply as the natural state of affairs, and then say hard money tightens the supply and is thus harmful.
The natural and beneficial condition is a state-free money supply. (Elite-controlled money creates artificial booms which always turn to busts.) Asset values under a state-free money supply would expand or shrink to reward or punish good and bad decisions in investment. As with anything else, any event or change in the system takes from someone and gives to someone else, but the difference between us is that you define 'doing something useful' as whatever activity is favored by the central planners, whereas I define it as whatever is favored by the totally free choices of investors.
The big scare by critics of hard money is the vision of never-ending deflation. The truth is, deflation ends somewhere: as we get older and our savings get bigger, and everything gets cheaper (remember we're talking about deflation!) we have more and more incentives to spend. In real history, the only big deflationary pain has come from the elites' deliberate effort, after a financial bust, at tightening money to protect the reputation of their system, by making the economic pain even worse. The 20th-century rise of public political power in the West has mitigated against this somewhat, but not nearly enough. (Outside the core countries, even today, the IMF always ensures there is an economic bloodbath after a bust.)
Is it not ironic that elite-inflicted pain is used to justify giving more power to the elites?