Firstly, bitcoin is net dispersive of wealth, on a global basis:  While it has a Gini comparable to some fiat economies, the population at the concentrated end of the distribution is largely non-overlapping with the corresponding population of the fiat economies.

Secondly I suspect that the various crashes and insolvencies have had a very dispersive effect.

Thirdly, circulation can be expected to have a dispersive effect.

Fourthly, why should your ressentiment play any role in bitcoin's success or failure?


Since bitcoin supply is inflating, it's difficult for me to understand in what sense it is "deflationary".  Restating an incoherent point does not make it more coherent.  It is an effective propaganda technique, however.  

If you mean that you require a non-market-driven price adjustment mechanism in your "competitive" coin, I can assure you that it will never have a snowball's chance of competing on a value basis with a coin which refrains from punishing savers.  Certainly worthless coins are already available in abundance, and their sheer numbers prove them "competitive" on a reproductive basis, if that is your metric.

Price certainly has high variance, but this is because the network is growing so rapidly.  Thus the variance of price is a positive indicator, rather than a negative one.  Many applications will require that this be worked around with derivatives, futures, off-chain or on-chain, but many applications will not require such infrastructure, such as e.g. instantaneous fiat transfers.  Any possible competitor will face the same issues, only in greater force, as it will be less mature in this regard, at the point where it begins to actually compete with bitcoin.

(For that reason, and related, similar reasons too obvious and tedious to enumerate, and several unrelated reasons which have been discussed in this forum previously, I think that )
any future competitor to bitcoin which displaces bitcoin rather than simply compounding its uses and value will have to be not merely better, but at least an order of magnitude inarguably better for the overwhelming majority of use-cases in order to be anything but a perpetual niche player.



While this is certainly a negative for many people, it is not clear to me in what sense it is a negative for bitcoin itself.  We are already at a point where new mining hardware will not be purchased until/unless/except-upon-speculation-of a price increase.  Existing purchases will be deployed and operated until/unless price drops below profitability.  If the market values security at one price and you value it at a different price, it is reasonable to ask: which valuation is more likely to correctly reflect the economic value added by the security?