The "blockchain technology" (the concept of a distributed ledger) has potential, sure, but:
1. Being forced to adopt a currency full of limitations and problems just because of the ledger is not gonna work.
2. the bitcoin blockchain is just an example of a distributed ledger, other protocols already exists today (and will of course exist in the future) that don't have the ridiculous limitations of bitcoin the currency and the bitcoin blockchain (and I don't want to go through that again, already discussed to death).
At least thats a bit more reasonably argued than the dismissive slamming that's characterised your posts of the last couple of months.
I don't doubt there will be diversity and more successful technologies in the space. But we're talking about money here - there have already been a flotilla of far more advanced 'coins' going up against Bitcoin and they haven't even made a dent in its marketcap. They're more advanced in almost every respect - speed of confirmation, anonymity, mining algo, non-mining algo, trading bells & whistle's like assets.
The reason they haven't made a dent is because bitcoin is currently seen in the role of a kind of crypto reserve through which the rest of the economy is valued. It doesn't need 'high tech' for that, it just needs to exist. 20 minute confirmations are fine. Banks take up to a couple of days to move money around.
None of us know the future, so I accept your point that this may not be the case in 10 years time or even 2. But a picture is emerging of alternative blockchains for practical use and Bitcoin as the reserve (demonstrated by the simple fact that the price of every alt coin is measured in Bitcoin, even the USD value is calculated by factoring through Bitcoin because it's the only one with a USD gateway to speak of). If that picture continues to consolidate then there's a good chance that it will be here in 10 years time regardless of what technology we use to buy our cornflakes.