There is a legitimate role for both things: to have some non-inflationary things that serve as a store-of-value, and then some inflationary things to serve as regular currency.

It is worth emphasising here: non-inflationary currency does not grow its value, so it would be unusual for people to want to put their wealth exclusively into store-of-value. Rather, most people will want a mix of inflationary-currency, store-of-value, and investment in growth-generating businesses.

When people talk about wanting to use bitcoin as a day-to-day currency, I feel like they are missing the best benefit if could offer us.

We already have effective day-to-day currencies. But we have not had a reliable store of value. The US, UK and Australia each have a history of denying ownership of gold when it suits them, which is when people need it most.

The lack of reliable store-of-wealth has made it too-easy for governments to fleece wealth-generating people in order to buy votes. This is not the long-term strategic path, but it creates a race-to-the-bottom due to short-term incentives. Perhaps blockchain will change that, by allowing the creation of an easily accessed utility that sits beyond the easy influence of the nation state.

To be effective it does not need to be perfect, just better than the options we have now. It has been encouraging to me to see the CCP struggling with blockchain, and then outlawing it because they cannot control it.

An argument can be made that if there is a 100% reliable, maybe even deflationary, store of value, it would have a similar effect to currency deflation: since it is worth more tomorrow, then you are disincentivized to spend your wealth, and not spending wealth (not investing it in some value-producing enterprises, buying things and services) seems like a recipe for stagnation and wealth gap increase.