I am skeptical that Bitcoin can/will permanently change the world in this way, even if it became very popular for a while, if only because bank notes and a new fractional-reserve lending system could easily be constructed on top of Bitcoin (using BTC, instead of gold/silver, as the base asset in terms of which notes are denominated), and, if, at some point, a sufficiently powerful government lacked enough BTC to redeem its outstanding notes, it could simply "close its BTC window" (just like Nixon "closed the gold window" in the early 70s) and then we'd be right back at fiat currency again. Then we'd be in a precarious situation again, vulnerable to the threat of inflation, just as we are today with the (formerly gold-backed) dollar. The mere existence of a cryptocurrency like BTC doesn't preclude new fiat currencies (historically derived from it) from ultimately winning out in the marketplace for currency, any more than the existence of gold did.
What damages your thesis (or would...see below) is that there is relatively less reason for people not to hold their own BTC and thus have counter-parties, necessary for fractional reserve schemes, involved. This contrasts with gold in that there are very compelling reason to relinquish control of the medium to a (supposedly) secure custodian.
Of course as it becomes less and less practical to hold one's own BTC, and more and more common to rely on bank-like entities due to the scaling issues popping up, this principle is muted. A potentially saving grace is that what one actually has are private keys and certain solutions do not require complete surrender of value. But then again most people are to lazy and/or uneducated and/or not sufficiently paranoid to prefer such solutions I'm guessing. In any event, a bank-like entity could likely gain control of many people's secret keys by offering some 'interest'.