Bitcoin utopia:
In fact, it is a fundamental problem with money creation: the distribution of seigniorage, and of course, the flip side: the cost of inflation.
It is unavoidable when an asset becomes money. An asset becomes money when the bulk, or all, of its price (that is, of its demand) comes from a desire to hold value, and doesn't come mainly from another desire to hold the asset (such as using or consuming it).
The production, and the increase in value, of a monetary asset profit to certains (= seigniorage) and are hence paid for by others (inflation). It is unavoidable.
If a normal commodity with normal usage (say, milk) becomes money, then the price of milk will increase significantly, as people will start holding milk for its value, and not to drink it or make food with it. This will profit enormously to people with cows. It will cause an over-investment in cows, and it will cause an under-consumption of milk.
If an almost useless commodity, such as gold, becomes money, then there will be an over-investment in gold-mining, and people who had gold for say, ornament purposes, will become very rich as compared to people who didn't have any. The more people dig up gold, the more they become rich, and this goes at the expense of those who have worked hard to *earn* gold, and see its value decrease because of the inflation of the gold stock.
Issuing fiat money profits of course to those issuing it (the state, the central bank, those giving assets to the central bank against fiat money...). By increasing the fiat money stock, this seigniorage is paid for by all those who held fiat money they obtained by working for it, because of the inflation they suffer.
With crypto currencies, you have the same issues. The idea was that during the inflationary phase, there is more or less a running-parallel with the adoption. As such, the miners, who get the seigniorage, but, contrary to the fiat issuers who get the seigniorage for nothing, are put in competition, and as such, just "grow the network", are paid for by the inflation, but on the other hand, more adoption would also mean an offset of the inflation.
If the rate of adoption increase were equal to the inflation, then we would have a perfect system. Clearly this isn't exactly the case currently. Satoshi had to pick an inflation curve, and tried probably to fit it to his imagined adoption curve. The more this is wrong, the more one will suffer from too much inflation, or the more one will get a too early price increase.
All in all, the way to handle the inflation and seigniorage issue with bitcoin is in principle not so bad. The only difficulty is of course that the real adoption will not follow precisely the pre-programmed inflation curve (over 140 years or so), which implies strong price fluctuations.