The philosophical issue you keep coming back to is your opposition to an unequal distribution of wealth. The problem is, in a free market economy, wealth naturally accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, the poor overthrow the rich through a violent revolution. Then some of the poor revolutionaries become tyrants, as you pointed out. The cycle repeats.
I don't know if there is any permanent escape from this cycle. It seems to be a consistent feature of human history.
What I do know is that for reasons of personal survival, it would be very smart for the average person with a low net worth to be accumulating cryptocurrency right now. Because I certainly don't think the economy is going to be improving anytime soon. All around the world, there is chronic structural unemployment, governments deep in debt and in some cases practically owned by for-profit banks, and a lack of money velocity in the economy because more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a few people who have so much that they don't need to spend it.
The only people who are truly free are those who have enough assets to live off of their wealth (passive income) rather than needing traditional employment. Cryptocurrencies offer ordinary people a chance to reach that level as this technology explodes over the next few years. I suggest that anyone who can do so, take that chance while it still exists.
It's not so much my opposition to wealth disparity in general, but my concern with how Bitcoin (cryptos) can potentially make the extreme disparity we have today look a lot less extreme in the future.
You say anyone should take the chance, but my point is that not just anyone
can take the chance, nor will they.
I appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion. With that said, I think your position can be questioned. You say that this is a chance for ordinary people to get a fairer share, but if self-limited cryptos are the way of the future, then aren't a very small amount of early adopters and/or the ones with enough money to invest, going to always form a very small and highly disproportionate amount of wealth holders-- as is already the case today?
Like I said, a tiny amount of the population already holds over half the total amount of Bitcoin. I'm pretty sure the disproportion in other alt-currencies is even more pronounced because they are even less known. And if the amount of potential new currencies is unlimited, then wouldn't it make their very reason for existence pointless?