...I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.
In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.
In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.
Right now we are all early adopters. Some were luckier than others but if you have a whole Bitcoin you're pretty damn lucky.
On the other hand even if you don't have a whole Bitcoin, even if you're very late it may still be better than whatever your national currency was. What if you were late to buy gold and now the gold bubble is as high as it can get and you never got in early? It happens. What if you missed the dot com bubble?
Even if you missed the Bitcoin train there are Litecoins and PPCoins. So at this point, the technology is so new that I don't think anyone involved in the Bitcoin community right now should consider themselves unlucky.
I also don't think people should get into Bitcoin to get rich quick. If you don't truly understand what Bitcoin can do for the world beyond make you rich then you're not a true supporter of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies.
Your text in bold is my point, and contradicts your own assertions on bitcoin. If you acknowledge an inherent value to any 'replicated' blockchain, where do you draw the line? Wherever that line is drawn if it encompasses replication it then becomes arbitrary. The problem with bitcoin is there aren't enough of them (in price terms), and at some point communities rather than individuals here will form alternatives to better serve their own demands. To bring this back to devcoin (as we're on the devcoin thread), dvc isn't perfect but it doesn't even try to feign scarcity. This is where bitcoin went wrong, or right, depending on your perspective and intent.