But more to the point, even the 19th century cycles were intimately tied to the credit cycle. It was just created by private banks operating on fractional reserves, as opposed to a central bank. There is no fractional reserve banking in Bitcoin. (Which, again, may be a reason it will never take off as a currency, I'm not sure.)
As you point out, there's no obvious way to do fractional reserves, so it can't be used for debt-based capitalism unless someone comes up with a clever mechanism for that, something deeper than commodity-as-collateral. Avoiding the currency hazards of modern capitalism by not being able to perform the underlying operations of modern capitalism is kind of cheating. And if you can do lending on fractional reserves, how do you know the hazards of reserve currencies aren't a function of fractional reserves rather than a scalable money supply?
I would argue that while the dependence on credit is real, it's not due solely to banking. The real dependence on credit is simply because wage levels are so low that most people cannot afford to pay for their lifestyle in cash, and are not even expected to do so.
When you configure the economy such that buying cars, houses, health-care, education, weddings, births, and burials almost always requires credit, then that economy will become intimately dependent on the credit cycle. If you don't like it, then you need to raise wages, reduce inequalities, and oftentimes even nationalize certain vital services, until ordinary citizens can go through life maximizing the amount of goods they pay for in cash and minimize the amount of loans they need to take out.
Otherwise, expect your society to be enslaved to the creditor class.
Basically, as bad as central bank meddling is, the alternatives are far, far worse - look at the boom/bust cycles of the 19th century. For the most part, competent central banks prevent both hyperinflation and deflation through controlled expansion of the money supply.