I have adressed this issue a couple of pages ago.

cypher response was : I can and will talk about whatever I want in MY thread, if you don't like it, go away.

Man you people are so dense it's like you refuse to acknowledge the arguments made in most of my previous posts and insist on your incomprehension of the whole dynamics at stake to justify your ignorance.

Let us do it then step by step so you understand where you mistakes are


Agreed.


This all sounds good to me... except maybe your inference that Sidechains "mess with this". moving on...


Mistake 1 : Sidechains can protect the value through merged mining.
Mistake 2 : A chain that has greater value than Bitcoin = an alt-coin with greater value than Bitcoin. Utility features/services annexed to the main blockchain DO NOT have greater value than Bitcoin, only an alt-coin (supported through a sidechain or not) can claim this. If that is what you are suggesting (altcoin taking over) Sidechains are NOT introducing this risk and do little to enable it. As smooth has pointed out, the creator of such an altcoin would realize it is not necessarily desirable for his coin to utilize a sidechain.


Mistake 3 : Assuming the transfer of scBTC does not generate, by proxy, the movement of economic energy to the main blockchain.


See Mistake 2 :.


See Mistake 2 :.


Refer to Mistake 2 :. Note also that "I don't think that is a secure strategy" is not a reasonable answer to the argument you have been presented. FACT : it is trivial for miners to merge mine just about any chain and they will if there is ANY value in it.


No different than creating altcoins.

Refer to Mistake 2 :


Mistake 4 : Failure to understand that sidechains can preserve the ledger AND allow for more features to the unit in the ledger.

Austin Hill : "The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit"

This is also a reiteration of your GOVcoin wins scenario which is truly a disturbing though coming from a Bitcoin proponent. See Mistake 2 :

 

5 minutes in :

"The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit"

"We essentially set Bitcoin as a transactional currency for all innovation"

I'm pretty sure the problem is simply ego and inability to concede the inappropriateness of his inital stance.

 

Success is never truly final unless something comes to an end. In the case of Bitcoin it is more of a process and considering the mind share and capital it has attracted in the 6 last years I would be very comfortable to say that Bitcoin is presently a success

Sidechains are the crutches that will allow it to serve all of its intended purposes.

I agree with your comment about confirmation times.

I'm not sure how you can say that privacy, on the model of the blockchain historical transaction registry and transparent ledger, is not aligned with the ability to make anonymous transactions.

I don't want Bitcoin to change, I already told you I believe it is as good as it gets (in the cryptocurrency world) from the standpoint of network, infrastructure, economic features and distribution.

Alts, while they may offer a particular desirable feature, do not come close to offering a value proposition similar to Bitcoin in regard to the features mentioned above.

I don't understand exactly what is wrong with wanting to incorporate a layer to Bitcoin so as to leverage its advantages while increasing its usability and features.

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

some of my posts from the therad

1. They have millions of dollars from selling mining gears
2. They have millions of dollars from VC investement
3. They have millions of dollars in Bitcoin profit from mining in the early days

So yes they must be burning through quite a lot of cash right now but in the long run they will be fine and they know it. Of course I am not suggesting they are ALL holding 100% of the Bitcoin mined but my guess is they are holding a good majority of them.
[/quote]



The thread is here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833155.0

but what if higher transactions translates to more coins being bought off exchange?

that sound like a pretty bullish scenario would you not agree?

I have discussed at length in the other thread why it is naive to assume that miners (well most of the ones that matter i.e. industrial ones) have to dump their bitcoins in order to pay bills.

They have several other revenue streams that can cover these costs.

did you ever think that the sidechain will be tested and vetted by the community BEFORE it is launched for public use thus mitigating your concerns

and the beauty of open-source is the mind share of all of the Bitcoin community can work together to mitigate these problem scenarios..

the obvious point here is you choose to focus on doomsday scenarios without ever considering the successful ones.

you have lost all of the credibility you have here ever since you started spouting that nonsense. IMO

you have to realize that there is no incentive for someone to create GOVcoin as a sidechain so thus your argument is that the GOV altcoin is going to take BTC over. if that were to happen and if you truly believe that then I suggest you sell all of your BTCs because sidechains are NOT going to have an impact on whether this happens or not

"market distortion"

 

surely you mean "profit incentive" right?

remember a week ago when you proposed that your anonymous sidechain would be so attractive it would effectively siphon all the BTC out of the mainchain 

now you are not so certain about "innovations" because they don't fit your argument ?

 

so your argument relies on ppl doing all sort of crazy shit but you expect me to prove things without the shadow of a doubt

you can't be serious 

this is a terrible, terrible answer and in fact there is no reasonable scenario for such a thing to happen. the only one I can envision where people would be selling their scBTC at a fiat loss instead of returning to the BTC mainchain is if a failure in the SC implementation doesn't allow it i.e. extremely unlikely and would be an exception that does not define the rule

read above for the first part of your question.

as for MM. I expect the MAJORITY of miners to support an utility sidechain putting forth a significant feature that should attract considerable use and therefore profit for them.

this is another thing you don't understand, the 1:1 sidechain "market" doesn't have to prove itself, and in fact it is very likely there is no such speculation that you are referencing.

the likeliest candidates to sidechains are UTILITY chains on a 1:1 peg issuing no assets. they are to be used "in and out" or with only a fraction of the user's BTC trusted to it.

it seems very probable to me these sidechains can be proven valuable and secure "out of the box". assuming the sidechain concept (two-way peg, merged mining, etc.)has been implemented, tested and vetted for some time. From there on, candidate sidechain essentially leverages this implementation and present a code that discloses the exact behaviour of the chain which is then reviewed extensively by the community before an "official launch". Additionaly, we also have to consider that the SC could also be leveraging existing technologies or concepts that have been confirmed to work successfuly in a different environment.

So obvious yet seemingly so hard to understand

the ever insightful so "appeal to the market" argument

In reality, "plenty" of your reasons have been dismissed as disingenuous, farfetched and overall FUD.

Here is my proposition that sidechains are an improvement to the system and add value :