my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money. all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money. Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.
is that consistent with your model? it doesn't sound like it.
Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here. Gold or USD is also money. Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer. These features make it better money. But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide). Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it. By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.
I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.
To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value. But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold. I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous. At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies. Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the
internet of money.
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.
This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.
After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.
They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.
The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be
available to sidechains that command these properties.