I am a bit confused about the whole idea. Why would bitcoin be a part of the monetary engineering thing for any of these countries when it was not even made or invented to do this tasks? Is this just an analysis of yours trying to connect things or you do really have proofs for that statement. Or is this just all coincidence. This is not even under the government control so how can one country benefit from it?
That is totally understandable. A country's government can benefit from Bitcoin by holding a lot of it and using its holdings to ensure its own currency doesn't drop too much in value against Bitcoin. (This is assuming Bitcoin has gained widespread trust as a good store of value.)
This could hypothetically work out for smaller countries or countries in a dire economic situation such as Venezuela, Zimbabwe and other countries where local monetary systems have already failed (Zimbabwe) or are in the process of failing (Venezuela). Bigger and more powerful countries don't need that since they have enough power and economic as well as administrative muscle to force the use of a national currency onto the masses as long as they themselves pursue sane economic and monetary policies with inflation rates bridled.
State issued currency is being inflated all the time, because of the incentives for the elites to issue more money and debt. From the elites' point of view, it's better to have a non-state money be the support for their issued money, in this way. This is the entire reason for having hundreds of years of modern history under gold or silver standards. (A stable gold/silver standard was the 'best' environment for the elites to skim off the cream of the economy by issuing money and debt.)
This is not the real reason behind gold and silver being used as money back in the day. The true reason is that states were weak then, rulers were often overthrown as a result of warfare or intrigue, and thus nobody would use paper money when it was guaranteed to lose all purchasing power in a couple of years, not even the kings themselves. Paper money, and especially paper money not backed up by anything (aka fiat) is an attribute of a powerful state.
You are joking, right
Gold/silver backed currency was the backbone of the British Empire and the Dutch Empire before it. It was also the case for the US until 1971. Were these 'weak states' which were apt to fall in 'a couple of years?'
You seem to be overwhelmed (bordering on obsessed) with conspiracy theories.
The proof of the correctness of any idea must be by argument, not by labeling them as conspiracy theories or truths. I only have to tell you that mainstream economists were totally in favor of the gold standard when the elites had enough gold, but are totally against the gold standard since all countries defaulted on gold (ie after 1971.) With this alone, can you tell me there is no deception in either the system or the opinion of economists?
The problem with you is that you use your better knowledge in economics to overpower the average user, to push your elite-friendly agenda. But you don't really understand money (and you still haven't responded to my point that deflationary pain, for which mainstream economists like to blame gold and the future use of Bitcoin, is only caused by elite-driven asset inflation and economic distortion in the first place.) This lack of understanding is shown clearly by comments like the above, about the gold/silver standards.
But very few people really understand money (and I mean in practice, as opposed to what it 'should' be in theory.) So you're far from being alone.