Your statement that Bitcoin cannot handle micropayments is absolutely incorrect. Are you familiar with payment microchannels? With microchannels, Bitcoin solves the micropayment problem like it solves other, related problems: with simple p2p network tech combined with cryptography.
In short, Mike Hearn and others figured out how to exploit Bitcoin's native scripting capabilities to support microtransactions. They call it microchannels, and there's a very succinct explanation here if you're familiar with Bitcoin scripting: http://www.slideshare.net/JohannBarbie/bitcoin-micropayment-...
There's even a working implementation: part of Mike Hearn's BitcoinJ, the second oldest Bitcoin implementation.
Now, you could argue that there's so far no big demand for Bitcoin microtransactions, and I'd have to agree. But to say bitcoin is not capable of them is simply false.
Edit: Also, your per tx fee is too high by at least 10x. In fact, many transactions can be sent at absolutely no charge.
Micropayment channels don't offer the flexibility of plain micropayments. Sure I can get $0.0001 from you a certain number of times, but I have to wait until I have a certain amount paid for it to worth it for me to make a transaction.
Micropayments that aren't channels will be possible when fees are lower.
This is just one of many competing "techniques" for bitcoin microtransactions.
As it stands now there is no universal standard, which is needed before you can say bitcoin is ready for microtransactions. It's a market issue, not a technical one.
This is getting ridiculous. So much patchwork and overcomplications show how unfit for the real world Bitcoin is. Just drop Bitcoin for Stellar and problem solved. But, wait, all that vested interest and money in Bitcoin keeps people stick to Bitcoin and reject anything else.
Patchwork??! This uses the original scripting implementation that Satoshi built. It's just one of many possible applications of it.
New applications are exactly why a (non-Turing complete) scripting language was included in the protocol -- so people could extend the Bitcoin to new areas.
You may not like Bitcoin, but calling the use of a feature that was built by the original developer to support one of the earliest aspired uses of Bitcoin "patchwork" is pretty unfounded.
And regarding Stellar, I'm a big fan of the Ripple technology, but very cautious about the entities behind both Ripple and Stellar. Just like Stellar, Ripple started out with promises of distributing the vast majority of the coins around the world, and yet 2-3 years out this still hasn't happened. The fact is -- unlike Bitcoin's -- Stellar's and Ripple's distribution model is highly centralized and thus potentially undependable.
It's patchwork as doing all this is not intuitive, it needs to be explained, spec'd out, needs examples and requires a learning curve. I'm fine with the entities behind Stellar and totally not fine with the shady, questionable, and faceless ones behind Bitcoin! The only character I cared about within Ripple is now with Stellar - Jed McCaleb. Last thing - the distribution is not Ripple's fault, it's the uselessness of cryptos for the 99% of the population, which is leading the imminent crash and burn across the board!
Ripple/Stellar is even more of a patchwork than Bitcoin. At least Bitcoin was created by a cohort of folks well-versed in the computer science of consensus and has some rigor behind it, Ripple is just a hacked up scheme with a (flawed) "whitepaper" as marketing. Same with Stealar unless David Mazieres makes some significant changes to it.
Joyce from Stellar here. Prof. David Mazieres is creating a new provably-correct version of the consensus system and will be publishing a white paper that will be in line with his normal, rigorous academic standards.
In addition, Graydon Hoare (creator of Rust) has also joined the Stellar team from Mozilla. Now that Stellar supports over 2.3 million wallets, making it the largest implementation of this system, we have found certain scaling limitations of the core tech. Graydon is one of the developers spearheading efforts to make Stellar capable of scaling well beyond its current limitations.
Once these two efforts are complete in a few months, I think you will feel much more comfortable with the robustness of the Stellar protocol.
In short, Mike Hearn and others figured out how to exploit Bitcoin's native scripting capabilities to support microtransactions. They call it microchannels, and there's a very succinct explanation here if you're familiar with Bitcoin scripting: http://www.slideshare.net/JohannBarbie/bitcoin-micropayment-...
There's even a working implementation: part of Mike Hearn's BitcoinJ, the second oldest Bitcoin implementation.
Now, you could argue that there's so far no big demand for Bitcoin microtransactions, and I'd have to agree. But to say bitcoin is not capable of them is simply false.
Edit: Also, your per tx fee is too high by at least 10x. In fact, many transactions can be sent at absolutely no charge.