a store-of-value that can't offer anything for the micropayments of the fledgling Knowledge Age, is going no where in terms of network effects.
Bitcoin is going to monopolize network effects in the NWO paradigm that most of the masses will fall into. If you are going to create an alternative, then you must identify the unique network effects of the alternative market.
Micropayments are only feasible given a prunable mini-blockchain like XCN's, or perhaps vaporware such as the Lightening Network.
Blockchain size is not the main issue with micropayments (no amount of pruning is scalable if the unpruned chain isn't scalable, i.e. scalability is a different complexity class from bounded compression). Rather as I discussed with thezerg upthread, at some scale micropayments force centralization of full nodes due to processing and bandwidth requirements. I argued that renting a hosting server is not decentralization, because the authorities can regulate the ISPs. Anonymity derives from mixing targeted activity (monopolization of mining by the cartel that runs our world) with untargeted activity (users surfing the net from a home ISP connection).
Going one step further, the requirement that full nodes (and mining in general) have to see every transaction is centralization and is one of the main design flaws I see in Bitcoin. Is this that great of a riddle? I don't think so. Just think about the only one thing the blockchain needs to guarantee in order to make crypto-currency valid. Is that still not yet enough hints (including prior posts with hints) to deduce my design?