Could you respond to this point?
> The prediction market concept is flexible enough to contain functions for gambling, insurance, and portfolio replication (currency exchange), as well as other functions.
Right, and if I can have lower fees than Truthcoin for my currency exchange by having a special-purpose blockchain (delegates would have lower bandwidth/storage requirements), shouldn't I make my own blockchain and out-compete truthcoin on that one particular area?
The only argument against one blockchain to rule them all is efficiency and resistance to centralizing forces. I think we disagree about the premise here, no?
Sorry, you faked me out there with the ">".
Lower fees are great, as is competition. I meant to say that blockchains are only useful for Value Storage, and Truthcoin can improve on Bitcoin via a clever escrow. Someone could design a better Truthcoin, or a better Bitcoin, but if they did, the old owners would probably absorb the design ideas into their existing software/ownership structure.
Value storage implies money. Money has a strong network component (you'd want USD if you're here in the States, in Europe you'd need Euros, etc.) I'm not saying that there will only ever be one (optionally, two) blockchain design(s), but that only one (optionally, two) blockchain(s) will ever be in use at one time.
I'm arguing FOR one blockchain to rule them all. If someone argued against it, I would expect them to (at a bare minimum) describe one hypothetical situation where a blockchain would be required that did NOT involve the storage of money (Bitcoin) or escrow of money (Truthcoin).