I see the whole idea of currency outside of government control to be entirely self defeating. Either you were already free enough to establish a currency which threatens the sovereign currency and thus the sovereignty of the government itself, in which case it seems that you didn't actually need a free currency to further establish your freedom, or you are under enough government control that this is impossible because they will use violence, espionage, or more subtle efforts to dismantle any effort to create a new currency. In any case, governments will use violence to secure their power.
In short, if cryptocurrencies threaten the power of violent governments, they will use violence to destroy cryptocurrencies. I don't see any way around it. Crypto is a technical solution to a social problem.
> In short, if cryptocurrencies threaten the power of violent governments, they will use violence to destroy cryptocurrencies.
There are smart contract based solutions like Ethereum. The latter offers to create system which fundamentally avoids disputes (like a lock, once you lock your home, you don't have to worry about someone easily just entering and squatting your home). Govts have no reason to oppose this, just like govt have no real reason to oppose people using Uber to hail rides.
Smart Contracts can also create dispute resolution mechanism which does a far better job than today's judicial system or the opaque arbitration system we have today. Again, govts don't have a problem with this.
You're confusing a smart contracts based blockchain platform with 'replace-the-dollar' cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Cash (not mentioning Bitcoin because they aim to replace Gold from your portfolio, and not the cash). These things threaten the govts, but the former category of technology doesn't.
In short, if cryptocurrencies threaten the power of violent governments, they will use violence to destroy cryptocurrencies. I don't see any way around it. Crypto is a technical solution to a social problem.