Currency fundamentally requires trust - at the very least it requires trust that the asset you are receiving is roughly equivalent in worth to the asset you're giving as part of the transaction. In the case of centralized banks, you have to trust the bank to help ensure the value of the currency. In the case of bitcoin, you have to trust the network, its participants, the exchanges, etc. Knowing that your transaction itself is secure is only a part of the actual, practical issue. You also have to be confident you can then use that asset to purchase an item of equivalent worth in the near term future. Trust doesn't stop, it simply moves. Centralized banks have made mistakes most certainly. They have also been around for hundreds of years. Bitcoin has perhaps fewer disappointments (although certainly not zero). It has also been around for a tiny fraction of that. How much of the extra confidence in Bitcoin is purely attributed to its otherwise relatively limited history as a store or exchange of value?
I won't opine on which one is "better" (if such a description even makes sense). However, it does seem at times that people rail against central banks while turning a convenient blind eye to the challenges of decentralized banks. Is it the case that only decentralized banking problems can be solved, and centralized banking problems cannot?