> nobody has the ability to actively control

AKA only the really powerful entities can

AKA "dictatorship"

A really powerful entity, let's say Facebook, or the US government would find it difficult to do any of these with Bitcoin (used as the example because it's well-known):

* Alter the monetary policy significantly

* Prevent a specific person, organization, or country from using the currency

* Prevent the use of the currency for specific goods or services

That doesn't make using Bitcoin a magic bullet to be free from the influence of the US government even if its popularity and monetary policy were appropriate for widespread use as a currency, but it raises the difficulty level versus influencing someone who's doing business in USD.

But it would certainly.

>I'm quite fond of the idea of a decentralized currency that nobody has the ability to actively control becoming popular. That would act as a hedge against abuse of power by both governments and corporations.

Precisely what Satoshi Nakamoto cited as his motivations when introducing bitcoin on the p2pfoundation forums.

>A currency used worldwide, controlled by a corporation, and under the influence of the US government would be the exact opposite, and is not a thing I want to see succeed.

Completely agreed. The U.S. has been using any reach it has into other countries to push its very peculiar cultural viewpoints into countries that don't want them but need fair access to finance capital.