That makes Bitcoin immoral from your perspective, without saying anything about the feasibility.

You even restrict the morality argument yourself by saying it is good that a democratically elected government should have the ability to control financial transactions, which I completely disagree with, but even you will admit that there are a lot of unethical governments out there that hurt their population by controlling financial transactions and inflating the money supply.

The parent is the one who said that it made it "all worthwhile". That sounded like a general truth to me, I felt the need to point out that it was still up for debate.

And my 2nd point was about the feasibility, I still have to hear from the bitcoin crowd what's the solution for day-to-day use of the currency that does not involve a bank-but-we-don't-call-it-a-bank-seriously-it's-not-a-bank.

Bitcoin was designed to be a peer-to-peer payment system where the owner of the private key is the owner of the funds. Unfortunately, building secure hardware and software is very difficult, that's why many people choose to not keep their private key on their device but let a service deal with the security, which is often a bad idea. One secure hardware is cheaply available on the market[1] and two-factor-authentication becomes more widespread, this becomes less of an issue.

http://www.bitcointrezor.com/

I get what you're saying, but presumably the fact that you hold an opinion indicates that you think it's the correct one.

If we had a strong democracy I'd support your viewpoint here. But in our 2-party oligopoly gov't, the general voters' interests are typically secondary to the wealthy's. Bitcoin helps even the score.