Not saying that it's true, necessarily. Just that the current balance isn't the end game and it's not totally fair to criticize a brand new tech/tool/whatever against well-established and well-optimized status quo.
The things that make cash useful for money laundering and black market purchases also make it easy for me to quickly, and without unnecessary ceremony, drop a few dollars in a tip jar, give some money to a panhandler, split the bill at a restaurant, chip in to an office gift pool, pay my kids an allowance, envelope budget, buy ice cream from an ice cream truck, etc. etc. etc.
Bitcoin in particular fails miserably at these sorts of use cases because nobody wants to sit around waiting 10 minutes for a transaction to confirm over a $2 soft serve.
Crypto in general fail because they're complicated and fiddly to work with. This creates way, way too much friction these sorts of casual transactions, and effectively shuts out people who aren't technically sophisticated enough to feel comfortable messing around with this stuff.
That isn't to say that crypto doesn't work as a store of wealth. But, as a circulating, everyday currency, it seems to be stuck in the same situation that Linux on the Desktop has been for the past couple decades: for a variety of reasons, some of them very good and no real fault of its own, per se, the community just doesn't seem to be capable of sorting out the UX.
I think it would be difficult to argue that it's useful primarily for buying your groceries.
I don't think Bitcoin advocates like following this train of thought any further than "USD is also used for crime".
My point is that this conversation is unfair:
Person A: I've just invented a new currency! I think it has better intrinsic properties than USD.
Person B: Well, I can't buy groceries with it right now, so it sucks.
Similar vein:
Person A: I've invented a new thing called the lightbulb. I think it will revolutionize lighting.
Person B: It's more expensive than oil lamps and electrifying buildings would be a massive undertaking. Lightbulbs suck.
As it was, they were primarily used for lighting rooms from the getgo.
I imagine some historian could probably dig up some sort of analog from 100+ years ago (possibly on tech that never did take off) but this isn't it.
I would like to buy groceries with it, but I don't want to hold much BTC for very long.
If you're trying to ban cash because you can buy illegal things with it, then you have a logic problem.
The same thing holds for BTC and illicit transactions.
All the negative stuff was going to happen anyway - including energy waste. Humans waste a lot of energy. Wikileaks on the other hand would have folded like an origami in any pre-cryptocurrency era.
This is the sort of press freedom that humanity has been longing for since ... I don't know. The birth of the press. It is really hard to financially abuse the truth out of conversation now. Which is part of why the blowback is so panicked.
Edit for spite: "contrary to the interest of civilisation" is the sound of a wealthy man who is friends with wealthy men who are terrified of what an organisation like Wikileaks could uncover.
If anything the last 2 years has shown me how fragile freedom is, and how much people are willing to give up freedom for safety and security. Sadly people like you and me that see Government as something that should be controlled and feared are in the minority as most people view government as the solution to all their problems, and as their moral compass.