If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions.
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Apparently billyjoeallen is a true visionary, unlike cripplecoiner Satoshi who put there the 1MB limit and only wanted Bitcoin's fate to be "restricted" into a much lesser role instead of wanting to include every possible dataset that can be "blockchained", into BTC's blockchain.
As an inventor, Satoshi would likely get enormous credit for creating something that could be used for 100 or 1000 stuff simultaneously instead of 1, 5 or 10. Yet he was quite open and honest about whether that would actually scale.
Satoshi showed the way: The invention of the blockchain could be used with parallel blockchains for different data sets. It was not necessary to put every single data set into the same blockchain.
But billyjoeallen knows better...
This is what I mean when I say arguing in bad faith. The context of the Satoshi quote makes it clear he was discussing BitDNS, which isn't at all what we are discussing here. Even still he qualifies why bitcoin users may want to limit the size of the blockchain:
so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
The issue was to keep bitcoin inclusive, not to make it exclusive. Fortunately with deterministic wallets we can use small devices and the size of the blockchain isn't a limiting factor. But
we can't have lots of users if we're limited to ~ half a million transactions per day.
And regardless of what SM thought about "Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset", the 1 MB limit was not designed or used to prevent it. It was specifically included to prevent DDS attacks and if it it used now for any other purpose, such as to create a transaction fee market, then that is a change, a departure that actually makes DDS attacks MORE likely, not less.
