[...] the _definition_ of crime is based on law, not morals or[...]
This is extremely misleading. Crime's second meaning is rendered in dictionaries as some variation on "a grave offense, especially against morals".
The combination of the two meanings could be fairly rendered as "behavior which should be punishable under criminal statute law".
Denial of that has been showing up in quite a few places recently. Attempting to legislate morals is an attempt to make children of us all, under the stern but loving gaze of Our Father the State, but all the same criminal acts are just that, profoundly immoral, whether or not anybody's written a law against them yet.
We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed.
We do. The legal term for terms like these is "unconscionable".
The infinite divisiblity prevents damage from losses like this, but flexible value has historically not been enough to solve the real problem.
As the amount of value accounted for by bitcoin transactions grows, the numerical amount of bitcoin available to cover them remains the same. This means that the bitcoin economy cannot expand without making any given amount of bitcoin more valuable -- i.e. they're a recipe for unavoidable deflation. The trouble with this isn't just a matter of perception, the fixed cap is gold-plated incentive for hoarding and worse.
If prices have to drop to make room for new value in the market, nobody wants to be the one that has to cut prices, so nobody does, so there's no money to cover the new economic activity, so the economy stagnates until the pressure becomes great enough that there's a sudden correction. Do some digging If there were a way to make a capped supply workable, by revaluing the markers or any way else, we'd still be on the gold standard. Here's one article laying out this argument against capped supplies — there are many more.