I think he was asking why sidechains as a replacement for alts (or really anything about alts at all) is so compelling.

I don't think it is.

Fiat is 99+% of the market. Look that direction, and stop being distracted by the 4% in the other direction.

Lol, that's their pitch for their new cloud mining farm.  Reading comprehension fail.

One of their real farms is what you have pictured below.  The link you offered is another pitch, all I see is "will reside."
Now highlight the part stating renewable energy is actually being used

The company does its mining in a helicopter hangar in Boden, a Swedish town near the Arctic circle, where it’s in the process of tripling capacity.

Altcoins are 4% of the market.

Why are people so obsessed with them?

Well here you go, troll


http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-01/articles/russia---central-asia/georgian-hydropower-turns-river.html

KNC farms are located in the Node Pole region and... shall I really quote myself?

Our farms are naturally cooled by the surrounding arctic air and exclusively powered by renewable energy.

KnCMiner’s center will reside inside the Arctic Circle in Boden, Sweden. Housed in a former army hangar, the massive facility’s energy needs are basically taking care of for the company. Solar power, low-cost hydroelectric power and the cold allow for these “mega data centers” usually needed for the high-demand of Bitcoin mining, and the virtually endless data needs of Facebook,  to flourish in the cold, while keeping costs of operations down.

Feel free to post links to better data

It can be boldly stated that Georgia is a "hydro powered" country. On average, 85% of the country's total energy consumption is supplied by domestic hydropower plants.

"Mostly powered by hydroelectricity?"  Care to cite your sources?

KNC:  Nothing in Iceland, Sweeden--"About 25 percent of energy production is categorized to be renewable energy."
Georgia:  "Georgia Power generates more than 1,100 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy, representing about 7 percent of its generating capacity."

Keep 'em coming

"Mostly powered by hydroelectricity?"  Care to cite your sources?

We are the leader in constructing and managing data centers for bitcoin mining operation. Specially designed for mining needs, our data centers are managed 24/7 by our dedicated staff and are located in strategic international locations close to inexpensive renewable energy sources.

BitFury chose Republic of Georgia a location with abundant hydro power and very competitive energy prices

“We searched all over the world for a suitable place to build the first of many of our own mega data centers, and to find the best location lying right here in our home country is fantastic,” said Sam Cole, one of the co-founders at KnC Miner. “Our highly advanced technology consumes a lot of energy, so for us it was imminent to find a production site with access to renewable yet stable and safe energy. We have had an incredible amount of support from The Node Pole representatives, local companies and the government here in Boden.”

The Node Pole initiative seeks to market Sweden as a destination for data center development, leveraging the region’s abundance of stable and competitively priced electricity from renewable energy.

Renewable Hydropower
Sweden has the highest share of electricity generated from renewable sources in Europe, and 7 000 MW is generated from renewable energy sources in The Node Pole region. The main power source, Luleå River, is twice the size of the Hoover Dam in the USA, and generates 4200 MW of green electricity, free from CO2 emissions. In fact, the whole of Norrbotten has an energy surplus of up to 50% thanks to the river. Due to this, industries in The Node Pole can increase energy use, without increasing emissions.

Try bigass red bold font AND ALL CAPS 4 TRUTH²



*Lol @ "it's renewable"

The only negative impact I find is the effect it has on the environment.

That's awesome so one CEO has enough balls and control to do that. But is it sustainable? How long do you think he can hold out at current prices? What if the market moves against him? How much of a down swing can he absorb before BEING FORCED to start liquidate his core business, dropping funds for R&D, laying off employees etc...? NotLambchop's trolling had some merit, you got to be more skeptical when reading releases from the CEO, their jobs is to paint pretty pictures. With that said i'm a bull, it's natural for supply to dwindle when price goes down hope their profits were good enough so they can hold out.

Again the bigger they are, and the more control you gave up to VCs the less likely you can do C even if you wanted to

That's basic business. The bitcoins the ASICs manufacturers are sitting on is considered it's inventory. Company needs liquid cash to pay employees, taxes, cover their costs, and reinvest the remainder into expanding their business model. That would be EXTREMELY risky/suicidal for the CEO of a BIG ASIC company to try and raise more cash from the VCs (at i'm sure very unfavorable terms) instead of a logical thing, like selling your own inventory at profit. That's just not how businesses works. Sure small guys/solo miners in basement can risk it all, be visionaries and hodl until they make it big or run out of money, but not the big guys. Big guys need stability and to minimize their risks, and stick to their business model. What most likely is happening here is BTC are sold to VCs at a certain locked in rate and VCs are holding the burden of BTCs and the price fluctuation (after all risk management is what they do) and ASIC manufacturer can concentrate on their own business model.

VCs are not there to be nice. And because of their terms should be the last choice when raising capital, after your own capital, then loans from banks, then your last stop is VCs. They're not nice guys who give out free money, more like making a deal with the devil. 

Interesting angle.

It may. That is clearly the intent of the side chain developers and promoters.

What Melbustus and I and are saying is that it will be up to the market whether that is actually what happens in practice. His #4 states this more precisely.

This is a key point I'd like better understanding on as well.

My understanding is that it is *not* a strict requirement that all units on a sidechains-utilizing ledger generate 100% of their unit-supply via locked bitcoins. I think the passage you quoted was poorly worded, and was just emphasizing that sidechaining can't result in effectively arbitrary asset creation.

Of course, sidechains are able to support their own assets, which they would be responsible for maintaining the scarcity of. We mean to emphasise that they can only affect the scarcity of themselves and their child chains.

Not necesasrily, no. If I create a side chain that isn't mined well, it may be subject to double spend or other chain attacks. It would likely be far less secure than Litecoin.

Furthermore, because sidechains transfer existing assets from the parent chain rather than creating new ones, sidechains cannot cause unauthorised creation of coins, relying instead on the
parent chain to maintain the security and scarcity of its assets.

A side chain is no more secure than any other coin that uses the same method of mining (and both side chains and others can use any method of mining).