But then recently an argument came to my mind which I think is the best argument against Bitcoin ever and nobody ever came up with it before me.
Hold your breath.
But the truth is that the more money you have the easier you can get more of it and thus as more money is printed the share of the rich people increases because your share decreases faster than theirs.
Why does it decrease faster than theirs and why are you using “shares” instead of purchasing power?
Total pseudollars in circulation: $5,000,000,000.
I own $1,000,000.
You own $1,000.
The system inflates with $5,000,000,000.
I lost 50% of my purchasing power.
You also lost 50% of your purchasing power.
Could you explain that further? I may have misunderstood that part of your message.
Imagine you were a Bitcoin whale and a different coin became big. Would you immediately invest in that other system? No! You want YOUR coins to be valuable. Not the coins of another system in which you have no weight.
You see, the problem with the new coins' potential is the wealth distribution. A cryptocurrency may work in a great way technically, but whales will grab it; it will then be manipulated. On the other hand, Bitcoin isn't consisted of whales, because it wasn't grabbed in the beginning.
So if the Bitcoin is unattractive to the elite - and it is - then why would they adopt it? Why would big corporations adopt a system that was designed for "us, the people"?
Quick answer: Because it's something new and innovative. It may still be an experiment for humanity.