In other words, you're ignoring all problems about value transfer systems like gold and cash while assigning basic problems like that nobody trades food for gold when starving to BTC alone.
Gold for instance, seems to be a fool's buy, because there are few truly-useful non-technical things to do with it (you can't eat it) but actually works well as a basis for some value transfers. In a crash your bitcoins would depreciate wildly because nobody would part with anything of value for some bits - or a piece of paper - or some shiny metal.
This is just inherent in trading - there has to be a difference in value or the trade wouldn't happen, and if there's a difference in value the values may not relatively correspond at all points.
To some people, at some times, a token may be a useful marker in trade, as cash is now. With World of Warcraft healthy, there can be a good market in magic swords. With a healthy world economy, cash can be useful. When either fails, current holders will suffer. Gold will suffer differently, it won't be counterfeit or lost, but it won't be liquid. Ditto for BTC, they just become irrelevant relative to food.
Gold is anonymous, but can't practically be traded that way in large quantities. Cash is only pseudonymous like BTC as usually used - bills are scanned when dispensed and deposited. It's not globally visible, just to the most likely and well funded enemy - your own government.
It really seems like you should be harshing on representational value systems in general, or something.
