In fact I think it's better for people to use a state crypto currency than using banks. At least with crypto currencies they are their own bank, and they don't need to trust and depend on some commercial and financial establishments. Bankers can start to cry, if it's not bitcoin, it will be another crypto currency, but the end of their world is approaching.
Depends, if not decentralized, as most States like it, then its the State assuming the role of bank, not you. They made sure to do that in Venezuela with the Petro Fraud coin.
For communists following the manifesto, it makes perfect sense. The State is supposed to end all banks and be the only bank...
And i think that's a step backwards, not forwards. If they do copy Bitcoin or straight adopt it, then yes, else, no. If they do copy Bitcoin, you have to carefully inspect what changes they have made, and often, they love to not respect the rules of free open source software (go sue them if you can), so the keep the changes hidden (In Venezuela it even violates a law made by themselves, but they don't care). So assuming they are transparent and release the code and all its changes, we can then make an educated opinion for the new State altcoin and its worthyness.
It always depends, but more often than not, it ends worse. Its best if they just adopt Bitcoin or at lease one of its closest clones.
I don't understand your point. It's the main goal of Bitcoin and all the cryptocurrencies to replace the banks, so why are you saying it's a kind of "communist" plan?
I think being the real owner and master of its funds, is more liberal than communist.
And even if it is a centralized blockchain, if the protocol doesn't allow to seize funds in wallets (like all cryptocurrencies), users remain the only owners of their funds.
For Bitcoin how do you want it to become the money of a 1.5 billion inhabitants country with only 7 transactions per second
It seems you don't understand various things. Bitcoin is decentralized, so this is not about Bitcoin, Bitcoin is perfectly fine, and its not replacing private banks with a state bank. With Bitcoin banks are optional...
The communist part is about centralized coins, this you fail to understand how bad centralized coins are. You think they can't undo your transactions? Yes they can, so its the same as you not owning anything in the first place. There is no such thing as a good centralized crypto, sorry to break your dreams. The whole point of centralization is you are not the master of anything; they are, yes they can seize your funds, freeze them or undo your transfers at anytime, and they don't even need your keys for that (with Petro you don't even get the private keys), they control their blockchain.
This happens to fit quite fine with abolition of private banks in favor of a State Bank, just like the manifesto says. Marxist communism (not anarchist) is all about a giant police State controlling (commanding) things, pretty much a police state, like in fact was tried in several countries of the former soviet bloc; tho they like to call it "a transition period" towards communism, and actually call it the "socialist" stage.
You miss the point where centralization ruins crypto. This is why i clearly said coins like Libra and Petro are utter and absolute garbage. Libra is private owned, and Petro is State owned, so there you get two extremes with the same (failed) result. While Bitcoin is also private owned, its ownership is spread into several many more people, with a bias to those that invested earlier; which makes it very difficult to change without consensus, but not impossible. It is too expensive to try to "attack it", which is the beauty or PoW. While technically possible, you will end spending more money than whatever you planned to obtain by performing the attack in the first place.
See, even if "now" governments see the importance of Bitcoin and try to buy it, most of it is already in the hands of people. And would be it too expensive to attempt to buy half of it to pull a 51% attack.
