While I may share some of the OP's concerns, I fail to see how these relate to Bitcoin. To asnwer the OP's question directly:
1. There is no "Bitcoin elite". It's a p2p system, open source, and open for anyone to jump on and off board as they please. Moreover, the majority of coins have not even been mined yet. I don't see the problem. You are free to mine, buy, sell and use coins as you please. You don't depend on any central authority to do so.
The majority of the coins will be mined in a few months, with all of what, 100k people having tried out bitcoin? Out of 7 billion?
I don't just rage against the pyramid because of how unfair it is, I rage against it because this silly popularity you think that would be impossible without it will EVENTUALLY BE ITS DOWNFALL.
Smart minds and great thinkers will start reviewing the history of bitcoin and will start speaking out against it. The bitcoin name will get trashed repeatedly and be called a pyramid. If there is one thing the general public understands, it is the words "pyramid scheme" regardless if bitcoin is one straight up or not. This early adopter super bonus is going to be a reason for it to fail at being a world currency.
2. Even if there were "Bitcoin elite," they could never become the next Rothschild family, simply because they are not a family. My view is that, while generations of Rothschilds were born into wealth and therefore inevitably understand how wealth functions (better than an average Joe anyway), some fraction of this presumed "Bitcoin elite" are dysfunctional, paranoid trash who will - if by some coincidence their amassed coins become significantly valued - quickly slide into a spiral of personal disasters related to addiction, lawyers, vanity, abuse, and stupidity. All I hope is that they spent their coins on their way, instead of losing them irreversibly to a black hole. The other fraction may just be fine folks, who will do with their coins as they please, without causing much harm to themselves or others. Many members of this forum come to mind, and I am glad if they got wealthy. Good for them.
The original Rothschild family was not born into wealth. Education and manipulation are things that are taught. Do you really think someone with 10% of all the currency to ever exist will be so frivolous as to waste it on the things you list? It is likely that satoshi holds more than anyone else and it is likely that he/them is very smart as evidenced by the bitcoin code. So again, you resort to hopes and wishes rather than the possibility that perhaps the Rothschild design was inherent and intentional. You could be playing right into their hands just as world governments did by borrowing from the Rothschilds to pay for wars.
Probably this point has already been made many times, but Bitcoin has two distinct advantages over fiat money in the context that you are asking (debt slavery etc).
1. No central bank has the authority to print money wiping out everybody's savings and setting interest rates to 0%.
2. Even when gold was money, very few controlled the mining of gold or even had the ability to safely store and protect large amount. So inevitably a majority of gold would end up with the few.
With bitcoin, it is very easy to store and protect large amounts, to transfer it anywhere you want, and nobody can take it from you by printing more. So of course some people are going to be much richer than others, but the ability to earn more bitcoins will hopefully be proportionate to how well you serve other people, in the long run, and not how clever you are in hijacking the financial system and its loopholes. I really think/hope that will be the key difference.
So we should judge bitcoin by how successful the current history of money is? Do you not believe the current monetary system to be flawed? Then why mitigate bitcoin's faults by saying "well this is how money already works"? The history of gold is the history of kings. Do you really want more kings?
With the sigmoid curve, why would anyone go in first? They would all be fighting over scraps of coins, and all the electricity they burned would be much more efficiently utilized past -2 on the horizontal line, when the coins start coming in abundance. Waiting would encouraged.
The coins would start coming into abundance as bitcoin increased in popularity. Posting a message on a crypto board that had all of 10 posts in an entire year is not exactly a big way to get the word out. You say there is no incentive, but if the early adopters could prove its use as a currency such as selling a pizza for 50 BTC instead of 10,000, how would that make any difference? If it had still not taken off by the time the distribution reached maximum (probably 50 btc/10 min) then it was unlikely to take off anyway. But, if it did start working, then as the curve approached 50 btc, you'd have thousands upon thousands of people mining as you do now, and the early adopters would still have a very large sum of bitcoins worth a significant amount of money, but they would not have a complete stranglehold over the supply.
I admit, it sounds good, but I don't think it fixes the real "problem": the coins flowing into the hands of a few right up until they have a significant number of them.
Excellent, I addressed this in one of my posts where I said it may just be the first big business that starts accepting BTC that becomes the real elite.
I'd really like to hear a method that directly addresses the number of participants, and then their subsequent share of coins.
encoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0 (again, it's overly complex but I set out to fix 51% attacks, pools, and other issues)
Early adopter shit is easy to promote. Give away 2x the coins, whatever. A deflationary currency is going to promote hoarding, and it is going to mean that the wealthy will always have more power over the unwealthy as they do not need to spend 90% or more of their income per year on food and rent. They can always hoard until the value goes too high and causes recession, then buy up property and other things of real value to "spur" the economy or LEND it too.
IMO, currency should strive for a stable value so that it cannot be manipulated by the wealthy. The early adopters can get all kinds of bonuses, I don't care about that, as long as they can't use those bonuses to manipulate.
Also, I am assuming most people understand this, but if there is a person that owns "375k BTC", and current price on mtgox is 5USD/BTC, that does not actually mean that the person owns 375'000*5=1'875'000 dollars. Would he try to sell all of them, the price would drop during that time, and even if he would try buy stuff/services for those bitcoins, that would also make the price drop because many retailers will sell off those bitcoins pretty fast. So while it maybe difficult to actually determine how much that is worth, it is definetely worth a lot less than just the amount times current price.
The point of avoiding a Rothschild family is looking to the far future and saying "what could happen if this becomes the world currency?" If all the non-material wealth is stored in bitcoin, 375k BTC is worth trillions. When you have trillions, you don't spend it, you manipulate. Look at politicians, ever bending to the will of corporations because they will get piddly sums for their campaigns.
Don't you, as a regular citizen of the world, get sick of this shit? Isn't the root of most crime simply due to the fact that many people cannot sustain a life above poverty? When you die, don't you want to be able to give your children the wealth of your many years of hard work?
I don't see how bitcoin fixes any of these meta-problems. I don't think bitcoin ever intended to. And I think that is really sad. It isn't the governments manipulating the wealth as so many of you want to believe. It is a very small group of individuals/businesses that are doing so. And bitcoin has this very same capability built in, no central bank required.
So you're right, knightmb would never be able to sell his 375k for 2 mil because the market would crash. But is this not the same thing as printing money?
