That's likely the only point that I agree with
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
I would agree this maybe the crux of the matter.
The trouble with your argument is, who are WE? As in 'WE should offer something else.' Of course, in the eyes of the elites, 'WE' means them -- ie what is in their best interest, in reality
There's no trouble
If we are going to take the power of printing money from the elites, we simply cannot be them, right? To get a perspective, think of "us" as a god of economics whose purpose is to facilitate the economic growth and development by means available to humans (i.e. without godly intervention). Simply put, it is not "us" what matters here but rather a purpose or goal to be achieved which is of primary importance in this concern
Precisely what form money/currency will take, and whether any scheme will be sufficiently useful for the economy, is not for you or me or anyone to decide. The free market should
There is no agreement on this, either
The examples you brought forth (like the Italian Renaissance) are too far away (in terms of both time and economic development) to make any definitive conclusion regarding this matter. In fact, it is not even decided yet whether the state-free money in particular and laissez-faire economy in general are actually sustainable in the long run. In other words, some government intervention in the monetary matters may be required after all (see below)
If there's an economic need for it, the market will come up with credit money
It had been tested and it didn't work out. I refer to the so-called free banking era in the US (somewhere between 1830 and 1860) when banks were free to create as much credit money as they wanted. It didn't end well, mildly speaking