Those who attack bitcoin make the common argument that governments and banks want power and control, and if bitcoin becomes popular, government will simply destroy bitcoin. In the podcast below, I make the arguments against this.
Not all cryptocurrency is decentralized. For example, ripple is a highly centralized cryptocurrency that is managed by a business that complies with government regulations. Within the crypto market there are crypto that vary depending on the degree of anarchy or authoritarianism built into the code.
The second argument is that even if governments want power and control, it doesn't mean they will get it. For example, if all governments wanted power and control and were able to get power and control, all government across the world would be dictatorships. Government is not the only source of power. Power resides in the people, and throughout history governments have been toppled by the people in revolutions.
Thirdly, even if governments wanted power and control, the individual politicians may want to store their wealth in bitcoin, which would make it very hard for government to put through legislation that suppresses bitcoin or other anarchic crypto (e.g. monero) since they would legislate against their own self-interest as well.
Even if governments tried to suppress and crush bitcoin, it is questionable whether they would be able to. Many politicians and bankers currently hold wealth in tax havens. Anarchic cryptos are similar to tax havens. If governments wanted full control of money, they'd fully control tax havens and offshore accounts.
Without watching the video: A state actor could put together enough cpu power to seize the blockchain. Amazon is a good example of a company with huge government backing, they have huge processing power too. A simple double-spend on 51 percent of full-nodes could endanger BTC. Forget the PoS or PoC coins, any State actor could screw them up.....