First of all, I really think it's lame to use such a bait-and-switch forum topic. You purposefully chose "The Second Bitcoin Whitepaper" because you want to attract readers to your topic, which, by the title, would seem to suggest that there is a second whitepaper and that the post reveals it. It's annoying when people choose inflated topic titles to drive eyes to their topic, so don't do it. You should realize, if you haven't yet, that lots of people have lots of ideas for ways to modify or extend bitcoin and yours is no more worthwile than many others, so stop touting it as if it is more than that.
Second of all, so many people come in here with ideas for adding rules to the bitcoin protocol to effect some pre-existing financial instrument that they desire bitcoin to reproduce. There are a couple of problems with this:
1) Bitcoin is already established and you have almost no chance of making such fundamental changes even if your idea is wonderful.
2) Most people's ideas are not wonderful, they are well-intentioned but completely miss a very important issue: they are completely unimplementable. There have been so many proposals for 'pegging' bitcoin value to some other real-world commodity value, but this is completely antithetical to the original purpose of, the original implementation of, and the spirit of, bitcoin. Also, it's absolutely impossible without an external authority declaring the 'current' exchange rate, and external authorities is exactly what bitcoin does away with.
3) Most of these ideas completely miss the genius idea of bitcoin which is to produce a system of fully disclosed information that anyone can use to validate any transaction. People propose all kinds of ways to 'peg' bitcoins value relative to something else, or to modify the number of bitcoins generated, or to introduce esoteric new transaction types that have some secondary effect ("contingent claims"), but without any idea how such things could ever be validated realistically and identically by all bitcoin peers. Any source of external data, such as a "current value of oil" or "current value of gold", cannot implicity be agreed upon by all bitcoin peers, so immediately the ability for all peers to validate transations goes away.
Before you go too far out on any branch of ideas about additions to bitcoin to mimic some pre-existing financial instrument, please take a minute to very, very thoroughly think through exactly what new information will be contained in bitcoin transactions (don't understand bitcoin transactions, how they are represented in the protocol, and what the rules are for validating them? Stop right here and don't go further until you do), and what new rules will be required for peers to follow to track and validate data necessary to validate transactions, and then whether or not this makes transactions impossible or impractical to validate.
The bitcoin protocol was very cleverly defined to require a minimum amount of data storage and network bandwidth to transmit, validate, and re-transmit validated transactions. Does your proposal blow up the CPU, memory, and disk requirements for bitcoin peers to an unsustainable level? If 100 transactions per second including your new protocol rules were transmitted, would any peer have any chance of validating them all?
You should have good evidence that your idea is even remotely workable before stating that there is or should be a "second bitcoin whitepaper" about it.