And let's see how that story pans out actually. I don't agree with the taxi mafia, but uber are not exactly knights in shining armor either, and are only really viable because of a Venture Capital subsidized attempt to create a monopoly.
Is your argument that bitcoin circumvents established institutions, particularly the unjust ones? I see the appeal, but those should be attacked directly; legally, and politically, IMHO. Not with tech hacks, the ultimate consequences of which are quite unpredictable, but also quite likely to just shift the concentration of power to a different set of people.
It seems like if we ought to be waiting for the state to fix payment processors, we should also be waiting for them to fix taxis, instead of operating illegal "ride share" apps.
My argument isn't about Bitcoin because Bitcoin isn't a technology that provides cheap settlement of dollars. Other technologies do though, and they additionally avoid the need to pay e.g. 3.6% (!!) to Stripe, which seems like it makes them worthwhile on its own.
Private enterprise quite legitimately alters the playing field by introducing new products, services and business models. LEGALLY. When it does so illegally, it should be stopped.
That is exactly my argument, bad institutions should be disrupted by legal competition, or (better), legal or political pressure. Not by illegal circumventions.
Since they provide what should be considered essential infrastructure, they should be required to provide service to anything legal, IMHO.