Those are big questions worth discussing.
Regarding the bolded one about concentration of wealth, I'm usually arguing the opposite: with sound money being in prevalent use, wealth (and hence power) would tend to disperse rather than concentrate. I would like to argue the concentration of power is a more-or-less direct result of the type of monetary system we use (think bailouts, corruption, deficit spending, misallocations of capital, hidden inflation tax moving wealth from the 99 to the 0.01 percent, privatization of gains, socialization of risks and so on).
A world where debt is money that is created out of thin air by a small elite and their institutions is very different from a world where money is allowed to emerge privately. Quite fundamentally different and I'm guessing we probably got used to take some things for granted that are actually a result of that type of system being used (like "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer").
In a world of sound money (I'm assuming that's the type of money that will emerge to be used if people are left to make their own decisions (or just take that power back)) people have to suffer the consequences of their actions as should be. Risks are real and hence the concentration of wealth (supposedly happening by lending/borrowing for interest) is kept in check and made more careful by the possibility of default with no lender of last resort or taxpayer to do bailouts in cases of black (or even just gray) swans. Money will flow from those who spend to those who offer products and services. It will flow from the rich to the productive. At least that's what I'm trying to convince myself of and I know it's rather easy to argue against that (in the form of "xyz will still be the case", e.g: "means of production still in the hands of the elite" and so on)
Now for the other question wether a series of jubilees by adoption of yet other cryptocurrencies by the people would be the norm... well, maybe. Seems to me if this first 'revolution' works out and a 'jubilee by Bitcoin' happens, there's nothing holding back the people from doing it again should the need arise for some reason, right? Maybe a new type of "check and balance" can emerge here?
With all the questions not clearly answered it seems to me that the separation of money and state should in aggregate be good for society (the people). I draw that conclusion (invalidly, I know) simply by looking at all the bad that is produced by the state-sponsored fiat system.
I agree with all of this. The concern that a Bitcoin monetary system might concentrate wealth is an understandable concern, but one that I do not share.
The history of western societies since the renaissance shows that the combination of sound money and free market capitalism is more effective at distributing and decentralizing wealth than any other system I've seen. In Europe this was the mechanism which slowly drew wealth and power out of the feudal system and into the hands of those who were productive.
In the US the banking system is an excellent example of how sound money distributes wealth. In the 1800's under the gold standard the US banking system was highly decentralized and distributed. The vast majority of banks were small regional entities, and the total wealth stored in the small banks exceeded the total wealth in the larger banks (which by today's standards would be considered small). This this was quite different from Europe where large banking houses, that were historically connected feudal rulers, dominated the industry.
However since the FED was created, the banking industry rapidly started a consolidation process, to the point where we have just 4 large banks that control most of the nation's wealth. This concentration was made possible for two reasons: 1) The FED's insurance policies which guarantees deposits removed the need for depositors to evaluate the health of a bank, enabling banks to rapidly grow in a risky manner without concern of losing clients (which they did in the 1800s). 2) The FED's Too Big to Fail policy actually
incentives banks to grow as large as possible, simply because if they do then the government will protect them against failure.
Under a sound money system, every single large bank we have today would be insolvent in a matter of hours (which is what happened to lehman after the FED announced they would not protect lehman anymore).
Yes under a sound money system some capitalists will grow extremely wealthy (think Standard Oil or Rockefeller), but these entities become wealthy by providing productive services, not leaching from the system (and anti-monopoly laws address this, by not stealing money from those who were successful but by ensuring a continued level playing field).