The design is such that when the system was initialized it was reasonably easy to compute a new solution, and thus "mine" a coin. As each coin is "mined" the next solution becomes more difficult. The scale of difficulty was set up in such a fashion that it is computationally infeasable using known technology and that expected to be able to be developed in the foreseeable future to reach the maximum number of coins that can be in circulation. Since each cryptographic solution is finite and singular, and each one gets progressively harder to discern,
This is false. The difficulty of solving a block does not always go up. Sometimes it goes down.
those who first initiated Bitcoin were rewarded with a large number of easily-mined coins for a very cheap "investment" while the computational difficulty of "extracting" each additional one goes up.
Increasing difficulty does not profit early miners at the expense of later miners. Sure bitcoin mining was easier for early adopters, but the value of the mined coins was less. In fact, the first 4 million bitcoins were worth zero when mined.
Its bizarre that Denninger is using a left-wing "envy" based argument against bitcoin, when most of his blog posts are about profiting by buying stocks cheap and selling them on to someone else at a higher price.
