>
The fundamental demand is for an asset that isn't subject to the whims of an unstable, fallible government.You're just trading one set of masters for another, in this case, it's the influential contributors and organizations that act as a defacto steering committee for bitcoin and the mining cartels that monopolize the hashing power. You might say "bitcoin is controlled by the masses", but this is only true in the sense that any ostensibly democratic government derives its power from the governed. At the end of the day, a small group of people will make decisions for everyone, especially if the stakes rise to a level where bitcoin is anything other than a technical novelty (which it still remains, despite what the relatively high prices would have some believe).
> it also happens to be a viable currency
No it's not. It could be one day, but in my personal opinion it will always remain as a "back channel" currency utilized only by enthusiasts and those with an explicit need to avoid the traditional banking system. There will never come a time when bitcoin is generally acceptable because there is close to zero incentive for the general public to use bitcoin.
> This is what everyone wanted, right? The end of central banks, the end of fiat currencies, the end of pointless middlemen, clearing houses and transaction fees
This is not happening and never will. Central banks and fiat currencies will always exist and bitcoin has its own competing system of pointless middlemen and transaction fees which will only increase if bitcoin becomes more popular and when mining rewards eventually fizzle out.