Seniorage, you mean first mover advantage? If so, then on the contrary, Bitcoin has that in common with gold. Fiat allows printing up money for free, which makes it far more imbalanced, and thus substantively different in terms of human interaction, since ethics seems to be what you are trying to distinguish. Gold and bitcoin both can be mined, moreso by those with the knowledge and positioning to do so. Fiat is privileged to a select few not in a free market, which would be merely unsustainable, but in a monopoly, which can extract value from people for a long, long time. This I guess you could argue is usury. But the key thing is that extraction of value is taking place arbitrarily against the consent of the people using the money (because they are forced via taxation and the police force that taxes pay for to use it), whereas in bitcoin, extraction is voluntary. Value will be derived from all participants in the network, as causality cannot be completely separated into private, discrete entities with no entanglements, and values are SUBJECTIVE.
Discussion
In your prior comment you asked me what is extraction, yet here I see you speak of a different extraction. Indeed they are not different at all.. whether it’s fiat seigniorage siphoning value before it reaches people or a monopoly enforcing artificial scarcity, the mechanism remains the same: an imposed cost on participation.
The key distinction isn’t whether extraction exists, but whether it is voluntary or coercive, concealed or explicit. Fiat, taxation, and enforced debt function as inescapable tolls, while Bitcoin presents an alternative where participation itself is the price, but without an intermediary dictating terms. We are both on the same page here.
The real question isn’t whether extraction should exist.. it always has. The question is: who holds the power to impose it, and is that power just? If you are familiar with the1919 Gold Fixing and have been keeping up with today's 2020 Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism, then you will see there is no black and white answer, hence my original empathy. We have conversed quite a bit so I'll leave you with this:
"So I’ll get down upon my knees and bless the Working Man,
Who offers me a life of ease through all my mortal span;
Whose loins are lean to make me fat, who slaves to keep me free,
Who dies before his prime to get me round the century.
Whose wife and children toil in turn until their strength is spent,
That I may live in idleness upon my ten percent.
And if at times they curse me, why should I feel any blame,
For in my place, I know that they would do the very same.
(John Turmel, Thoughts of a Rich Man on Usury)"
You strike me as someone who is very familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. I have been meaning to read their work. Perhaps that will help me understand your perspective.
Here is my final thought: I completely agree that what makes money unjust is the justice of the method. Coercive monopoly is what is unjust to me, but I agree that we should strive to make transactions easy for people too. That's asking for a solution to everything now though, and is too difficult, even impossible a thing for people to just suddenly know how to do. It is not unethical for them to fail to do it, in my view. I work for solutions, to things I value, as an individual. I follow the NAP and build a world that's better and gives people lower transaction costs. That's my solution. I don't put it in the realm of ethics. I just make it something I care about and pursue. It is a moral value. Even disregarding this value for other people's wellbeing though, this is what ethical capitalists do. They exclude no one from having the power they need, but rather they create the means for everyone to achieve even greater success at what they value.