Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state by definition has monopoly on violence, not power in general. You don't want a state with total centralized power over the economy because you end up with places like North Korea or the USSR with uncompetitive industry and shortages.
Violence is the most direct way to apply power, but not the only one. "Monopoly on violence" sounds cute, but it's not the precise and only thing the state is supposed to have. What good is a state so disconnected from money that it can't even fund its violence-applying apparatus? Also: control over money doesn't imply control over markets. As evidenced by pretty much all western countries.
Anyways, Bitcoin doesn't seem like much of a threat to the kind of power developed countries have over their currencies. The USD isn't going anywhere and nobody is using cryptos for day to day purchases or servicing debt so the fed will remain firmly in control of the money supply and interest rates.
It is much more of a threat as a method of capital flight to undeveloped countries (eg. China) who like robbing their citizens through inflation, currency manipulation, and capital controls.
I think that's a great thing.