Good post but I think you are concentrating too much in the way things work now, if you look at the past you will see that the asset which was selected as a form of money was the one that had the best characteristics, this is why in ancient times gold and silver were chosen by many independent cultures as their form of money, but this has been distorted in recent times, bitcoin is just a way to try to go back to those times in which the superior asset became dominant.
I think Dr. Steven Englander's point is correct, money is political and it should not be replaced by Bitcoin or any other asset class.Not only does fiat money represent the value of each nation, but it also represents political power in countries. If fiat money were meaningless, then there would be no differentiation between currencies across countries. All have its reasons.
Although Bitcoin has the ability to reduce inflation, it is very volatile, which is also one of the factors that makes it impossible to be a universal currency. We are talking about the macro and don't bring the microscopic factors for comparison.
