Bailouts via new money that devalues existing money can't happen in bitcoin. Fractional reserve would still happen, obviously, but leverage would be a lot less because there's no implicit lender of last resort. Consumers would cause bank-runs MUCH sooner than 100:1 leverage. The system would be less susceptible to long-run extreme tail-risk and moral hazard.
Less susceptible is still a system that will fail, just at a slower rate. Which will force bailouts or it will all come tumbling down. Why? Because Bitcoin does not prevent banks from creating new money, since the money is just numbers on the banks balance sheet. Just as if everyone used gold as currency, it wouldn't matter. Fractional reserve banking can "print" as much money as it wants. Run on the banks won't happen as long as people keep borrowing, which they are sure to do.
It's hard for people to think outside of the plane on which they've lived their entire lives. We've all grown up under a monetary system where supply expands by mandate (ie, the Fed's long-run 2% inflation target). In that context, deflation is bad, yes. But it's bad primarily because it's not the norm; it's unexpected when it happens, people *continue* to know that overall the economy is INflationary, so they hoard *while* it's deflationary due to their future expectations of the return to the mean.
That's very different than an economy where there currency is credibly *guaranteed* to be deflationary in the long-run and where the *exact curve* of money supply dynamics is perfectly known to all economic participants. In such case, people's core demand/supply curves take over and they can allocate capital optimally according to their own preferences, without having to worry about whether the *current* money supply dynamics are out-of-whack wrt long-term expectations. That entire calculus just goes away. Thus no harmful "hoarding".
Again, it's tough for people to intuit this, given the monetary norms of the past century. Thus I'll cut "every other economist" some slack for another few years.
I've read countless arguments for and against deflationary currency like Bitcoin. Maybe what you say will prove to be true and maybe not. One thing is for sure, it's merely an untested theory. Beyond that, it's the bigger problem that concerns me and if there is not a 100% solution to that, the system will fail, regardless if what you believe, proves to be true or not. I'm not against Bitcoin, I just don't think it solves the problems, so while you're talking about thinking outside the box, maybe someone would like to deal with the global banking cartel, because just creating a currency free from government, isn't going to accomplish that.
My main issue is not that you question bitcoin as a/the major world currency. Or that you question a deflationary currency.
My main issue is you seem to paint the subject of bitcions success or failure as black or white, a be all or be nothing. There are so many things bitcoin can be - a means of frictionless money transfer, a real store of wealth, a niche currency, a country's currency, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
So to just run around calling bitcoin nothing more than a speculative bubble is disingenious by you, imo. Especially if you read as much as you said you have.
I personally believe bitcoins can have a 100 billion dollar market cap and be a niche currency at best. That's not failure. That's not a bubble. That's a small part of a global financial system.
You sound to me like someone who had the opportunity to buy bitcoins cheap and did not. Now you complain about potential future bitcoin millionaires. That's not geniune, imo. Because you are justifying not owning bitcoins because of some idealistic belief that bitcoin isn't the answer to the worlds financial problems. You know, it probably isnt THE answer to the world's financial problems. But that doesn't mean it isn't going to carve out a nice little niche for itself in the world. (ie 100 billion market cap+)