1) Bitcoin will never be a national currency for the same reason that no country will return to the Gold standard. It is for a completely different reason
2) As the value of BTC rises it will be held by more and more people. By your logic nobody should buy/trade/acquire any more BTC. Half of them are already held by a tiny (globally speaking) number of people and thus outside would be better off not buying them and insider would be better off just selling them. Of course there will never be a scenario where Bitcoin goes to being held by thousands to being held by billions. The thousands will sell to tens of thousands who will sell to hundreds of thousands who will sell to millions. At the point where BTC had a large enough coinsupply to be useful for even a small nation the coins wouldn't be held by thousands they would be held by tens of millions.
3) Money isn't wealth, money is an accounting system. The rich hold a negligible rounding error of their total wealth in cash. The poor would benefit from a currency which isn't continually debased.
Of course I don't think Bitcoin will ever become a national currency however I don't think that provides any meaningful limit on adoption. Bitcoin could be used someday (in theory) by nation states as a strategic reserve (like Gold Bullion).
I agree. What Bitcoin does extremely well is handle small international transactions over the Internet so it has a very good chance of becoming the de-facto currency of e-commerce and small international funds transfer (such as migrant workers sending funds to their families). Could it become a reserve currency in the future? This is possible but not until the world's central banks are run by people who today are in their early 20's or teenagers. So for example take Ben Bernanke's age 59 subtract 20. This gives 39 years minimum before Bitcoin has a chance of being recognized as a reserve currency. If one uses Alan Greenspan as an example then it is more like 59 years.
I don't like this talk that money is not wealth. It is wealth, and the value is exactly the exhange value of the money, as the traders (everbody) values it. A peculiar thing about money is that it has no other value, meaning that the total money supply is of no consequence. There could be 42 million bitcoins, or just one. It would be the same. But it is still value and thus wealth to the owner.
If nobody had money, that would not be of any consequence to the total wealth of mankind, utility of all goods would still be there. Except the current state of affairs could not be achieved, because it would be difficult to exchange and therefore divide the labour and increase productivity of labour trough capital formation. The same would be true if one person owned all the bitcoins, it would be of no exchange value.
Bitcoin shares this trait with fiat money. They also have no intrinsic value, all the value is in the exchange value, or its moneyness. Of course there is a difference - the fiat money does not have a constrained supply. Hoarding money is just a choice to consume later. Some people wants to consume everything now, or even before they have it. There are lots of situations where this is sensible, for instance buy a durable good like a car or a house. Some people want to have something handy for the immediate future, for years later, and somebody also saves for the benefit of the next generation. Still, the purpose is always to consume later.
Imagine a world where food was money, for instance all the staple grains at the same time. Then saving would be a problem - you save tons of corn for instance, while other people have to starve. A bit less so with gold - if gold should again be preferred money, gold in electronics would have to yield for something less adequate. The fact that bitcoins and fiat does not have intrinsic value, is good.
In case it was not clear - intrinsic value is value other than its moneyness.
Still prefer the QR solution though. 
