Money is most useful as a medium of exchange. As such its value should be stable on the micro (day to day) level. Slow decrease in value over time ensures that it is not a very attractive store of value, meaning that cash is invested, recirculated and used rather than simply hoarded.

Additionally, a central bank can (and should) act to stabilise the value further. When there are financial crises there are a variety of powers that can be used by a central bank to try and mitigate problems that could be exacerbated in a currency without this feature. Having a central bank with a variety of monetary powers is therefore a positive.

With a fixed supply and an ever-increasing value, bitcoin discourages any investment (why bother with risk? I'm getting richer just sitting here). More than this it massively rewards people who have bitcoin over those just coming into the game, using the economic output of those that are actually productive (be they workers, business owners, entrepreneurs, whoever) to enrich those that just sit idly on a hoard of coins.

This is why I think the fundamental parameters of the Bitcoin currency are unsuitable for large-scale or society-wide deployment.

Right up until that central bank wipes out the middle class when 40 years worth of bills (i.e. inflation) finally come due.

I do love a good bit of hyperbole! I'm not really sure that's happened, has it? In fact it looks to me like the central banks of the world have tried their darnedest not to let their respective currencies collapse, and mostly to good effect.

I certainly wouldn't argue that every fiscal decision made by the powers that be is a good one, or even that they're overall doing a great job. I still prefer them over a currency where there is no ability to do this.

Keeping BTC in a wallet is very much more like just stuffing dollars in a shoebox, the money is dead and removed from the system. It's not driving anything.

No, banking hasn't worked this way for a long, long time.