Please read my post in detail again. You are not understanding the big picture. Don't think of the bank as an individual or a normal company, think of them more like a utility. Like an electric company that provides electricity as a base input to the economy, the bank serves to provide money/liquidity. You say the bank "didn't have to do anything", but you totally ignored my point about the important role banks play by screening for credit risks, thereby helping to ensure that only productive loans (meaning loans likely to create economic value and thus be repaid) are issued. This is not "nothing"; it is an extremely important role in the economy.
You are correct that wealth is goods and services, not currency (not Bitcoin, either). And fiat functions extremely well at promoting the creation of goods and services via the mechanism I outlined above.
There is nothing unfair about a bank creating money at the time it is lended, because the money is subsequently destroyed upon being repaid. In essence, the money never actually existed, it was a fiction that merely served to facilitate the actual economic activity that creates wealth. The money was not real and vanishes, but the economic activity that it enabled is very real and endures.
In actuality, there is no such thing as an objective, universal "money" that exists independently of the economy and retains value in and of itself. Such things do exist, but we call them commodities, not money. Your major hangup is that you continually confuse the role of a commodity (like gold, or Bitcoin, in your view) with a currency. Commodities like gold and Bitcoin can function only very roughly as money in comparison to fiat, because they inherently lack the flexibility of being created and destroyed via the lending process. This is why no modern economy can function on a gold standard, and why Bitcoin is wholly unsuitable for use as a currency.