And all the bitpoor, comparatively become poorer.
Obviously, that was my argument.
Bitcoin either needs to effectively be able to replace existing currencies, or someone is going to get left holding the bag. If the latter is the case, the eventuality of bitcoin is failure since there is no actual commodity except transferring money over the internet. And people can do that without risking their wealth.
In your scenario, it will be the "bad guys" left holding the bag. Which is why it makes no sense, it's a self-defeating strategy.
Conflating issues like legal tender laws only make your stance weaker, not stronger. But you can believe what you want because I know I won't be able to make any sense for you.
I addressed specific points you make, you're trying somehow to wiggle out of it by jumping between the points. You said that the "bad guys" can influence laws by creating a panic. Even if it was true, this only works if it affects the people and/or politicians in the country where you're trying to influence laws. That is why your argument makes not sense with respect to Bitcoin.