At this point, I'm basically saying the bitcoin P2P network offers potentially transformative innovation and cohesion in the transactional space.

I get that. The difference between you and me is I remain skeptical. Thanks for your reasons.

Mine include:

1) The prices charged by existing networks are arbitrary, not fixed-cost. A viable cryptocurrency (let's just call it CC) exchange would definitely exert downward pricing pressure on Visa or Paypal. But then, it probably has. Target griped a few years ago that their biggest expense was credit card transaction fees; I've never seen Walmart say the same thing. Dollars to donuts Walmart stiff-armed Visa and MC.

2) Those with the most incentive to use a CC network are those most impacted by a 3% fee. Those most impacted by a 3% fee are the ones with the most leverage over a closed network. The small business owner benefits from going to CC because he has no leverage. The large business owner benefits from whinging to his banking network.

3) The allure of CC is in anonymity and a lack of central control; the allure of a conventional network is FDIC insurance and heavy regulation. In order to trust a traditional network, you need to know that the government insures it. In order to trust a CC network you need to have a more-than-passing knowledge of encryption and P2P. Bittorrent remains wizardry to the majority of the populace.

4) Your arguments basically boil down to "extensible marketplace" vs. "walled garden." "Extensible marketplace" is not necessarily an advantage; the App Store still does 4 times the business of Google Play. Combine that with the points above and no matter how awesome CC may be, no matter how many advantages it provides, it still could end up Betamax. It still could end up OS/2. Especially since the things a CC infrastructure offers over a traditional infrastructure are things the traditional infrastructure chooses not to provide, not things they cannot provide.