You don't like the word conveyance.  OK
BTC don't really "move" either, you like the word "represent".
The point is the same though.  It isn't a peg.

And...that's a good thing for SCs.

I like conveyance better than represent, because the scBTC does more than represent BTC, it wraps the currency in a different block chain with different characteristics.  Like putting it in an envelope for more privacy, or to a fast block chain, or to use BTC as the "backing" for a special purpose currency (like a redemption value in a store issued coupon that is worth more BTC if the SC is spent in that store before the expiration date, and after is worth only the BTC value by redeeming it back to the Bitcoin block chain).

The BTC<->scBTC trades will have to gain value to someone in BOTH directions or they just won't happen.  Someone would have to have a reason to move to a SC.  And then they (or someone) would have to have a reason to move back to BTC.  These may not be the same reasons as illustrated above.

Any?
Like LTC?

There are thousands of reasons one might not welcome this.
One may not be able to trade out of one for the other.
There could be a different scBTC that one might prefer.

I am with you in that I agree that there are good financial innovations.
Do you also understand that there are dangerously bad ones too?
Do you also understand that very often people will choose these dangerously bad ones over the good ones, and that sometimes they do not become so dangerously bad until enough people welcome them with open arms?

Perhaps this is the fundamental point of disagreement?
There are so many different things in the SC bucket that anyone who thinks that no caution is needed is not thinking very hard.

It is akin to saying "we have invented derivatives, yeah baby".  
It is a fintech innovation. Arguably a very good one, but people have different opinions on that.  It has also created risks that were not managed.
scBTC is similar in this way in that it necessarily increases the complexity risks systemically.
It may be worth while.  This will depend on the people and how the technologies are implemented and used, don't you think?

There simply is no peg.
The SC contains bitcoin.
This is not a peg, it is a conveyance.
These are different things, and you ought not confuse people by equating them.  It runs counter to your goals.

Really, you ought to stop.
It is as though you are trying to convince people to hate Side Chains by making inaccurate statements one after another.
1) altscams can and do decrease BTC prices in more ways than one.
2) Consider a scan....If I introduce a SC with a hole in it, that lets me collect all the SC coin and then sell all the BTC connected to them?
There are many possible scams, only a failed one (that is an ineffective scam) might increase scarcity.

That isn't what begs the question means.

You may indeed welcome it.  But others may have many reasons not to do so.
It raises the risk to the minority.
It is similar to the problem of democratic voting.  One wins, one loses.  If you do not agree with the majority, you lose.
So "we" in this case is a subset of "we" that may not include cypherdoc or any other particular person.
Do you see why this is not a compelling argument?

Your opinion is noted.  We disagree.  I think it is a closer analogy to any of those you've used.
The bitcoin is contained within the SC similar to how it is contained within a physical bitcoin.  The physical bitcoin offers features that are not available on the main chain.  Transactions with physical bitcoin do not affect the Bitcoin block chain.  Huh, asinine... ok

Analogy aside, consider here that you are postulating that the SC features may bleed out some of the contained bitcoin to be used for TX fees and claiming that this potential feature which has never been implemented is going to happen, and so no one should have any worries about this?


Right...  There is no peg.  You claiming that there is one does not make it so.  The SC is a container for bitcoin with different characteristics.  This is not the same thing as a peg.
(a peg is not necessarily a good thing in any case)

Are you entirely certain you know what a Side Chain is?  Your explanation of them makes them sound really horrible.

p2ppool would be just plain out of luck for now.

I hope you don't think I am being argumentative for any reason other than that I would like to see you improve your arguments.  The arguments you are using aren't compelling, but never the less I do think that there may be some utility to MM SCs.  I just don't think you are representing them very well.

The current situation of BTC being the most liquid and secure chain supported by the biggest infrastructure is not necessarily the future situation.

The coinbase TX block reward is the primary incentive for mining currently.  It is 300x the fees.  This may not be the case in the future.
It is not a good position to take the current situation and suggest that because it is that way today that it will be that way in the future when we can be pretty sure that it won't be.  Especially so when one of the effects of scBTC is to transfer that liquidity and security to the SC.

I don't begrudge Cypherdoc not going into detail on dismembering these, because they aren't all that substantial as critic defenses go.  I don't know if it was sincere claim that these "debunk" all concerns for all people reading this or if that is just baiting.
This protection isn't needed for Bitcoin, but for what risk SC introduce to Bitcoin mining.  Bitcoin mining is sufficient and expected to remain so absent continued centralization and pooling.  SC are parasitic in this way.  They are dependent on Bitcoin mining.  If at some point in the future, there is a particular SC that consumes the bulk of bitcoins in circulation, there is a non-zero risk to Bitcoin that there will be insufficient bitcoin transactions to support bitcoin mining in the later days.  It will have ended Bitcoin (albeit presumably for something better).  People are not always right, that's how we got to where we are with pervasive central banking.
Cypherdoc's allusion to your ability to predict human behavior is a trope to this.
So while your statement is true it doesn't answer the criticism.  (Yes SC "can" protect the value through merged mining, but that is not their purpose or intent, and it is not such a likely outcome.  Cypher "can" go into space if he pays Virgin enough bitcoin, but I don't think he intends to do that either.)

This one is simply wrong.  Further, it makes several claims in succession that are not entirely related.  These are specifically a risk that SC do introduce.  In the same way that if physical bitcoin were what everyone wanted, and we traded those instead, there wouldn't be any Bitcoin TX fees.  These do have greater value in the free market than electronic bitcoins.  There is no peg, what there is, is inclusion and embedding of btc in another block chain which is separately traded off Bitcoin's block chain.  

Patently false.  We can transfer scBTC back and forth to each other, and this does not necessarily have any effect on the main block chain, economic or otherwise.
There might be some effect, but there is no assurance of that at all.  The Bitcoin block chain could even end without impacting the ability to transact amongst ourselves on a SC of BTC.  They may be independent economically.  

This is your mistake.
SC assures neither of these.
SC does not assure any preserving of the Bitcoin ledger.
The additional features are not in the Bitcoin ledger, they are on the SC.
They are "possible" effects.  You are using the word "can" here and pretending that it means "does", and suggesting that this answers the concern.  Many people do this subconsciously, it is human nature.  Don't feel too bad about it.

I will take this bet.
Who will escrow?

Your Majesty's guests would be welcomed at my city home if the Noble Palace is not yet in a state to receive them.
Though I am entreating to all the nobles in private communications, as well as through this announcement that they consider selling any unused stones.

To those who are saving their stones because they are not sure if they will need them, please feel welcome to contact my good self for assistance in determining this and assisting with completing building plans.

It is in the interests of those that want more government control over health for there to be a crisis.  
Early intervention and prevention (especially if successful) will look like an over-reaction.
Whereas an evident crisis will help cement those in power.
The CDC is headed up by a political appointee.  They have downgraded the protective measures they are recommending, and approving non-factual information for the administration to convey, giving them cover politically.  ("Well, we are just following the CDC recommendation").
It is enough to make someone cynical.

Sure and calculated physics in a vacuum is useful in space.
Theory and practice are different.
Even some bitcoin have different price than other bitcoin, or hadn't you noticed?
Bitcoin is not perfectly fungible with other bitcoin, why should you expect it to be so with SC-bitcoins?
(Want to buy some gox-coins?)

Your Majesty, this is indeed very welcome news. 
Even with these stones, the projects are still well short of what is needed.

In my paving the roads this day, I wonder if the allowed half allotment was purchased from the peasant masons or were only my own piles depleted, and if not, could what was used in this paving also be bought from peasants to meet the maximum 50%?

It seems much of the great heap of stones sits unused and not for sale.
My fellow nobles are missing out on the opportunity!

Once these first few edifices are constructed, my own architect also becomes available for hire.
Mayhaps this also serves to reduce the unsightly heap in our grand city square.

It appears there are several million stone sitting idle.  The Earl of New Liberty is busy paving roads, and now seeks to erect a structure.
If you are holding your stone in order to build, please see me for architectural designs.  With all the building I and my associates have planned, there is now a resident architect in my employ...

SC seem more like Crypto Currency Casasius coins to me.
Bitcoin Inside.

15 million people and 11 billion in debt, mostly to China.  
Their central bank plans to issue an electronic currency that inflates, pegged to their fiat, and can't bear competition.
I wish them luck.
They will need it.

Doesn't the thread end after all that Hitler stuff?

Arguably we jumped the shark with the OP, but by now we are pretty far adrift.
Even more smatterings of intolerance and nazi fear mongering couldn't really sink this much deeper.

It is bad for each of these governments.
Bitcoin has many purposes and raison d'être.  I think that I do understand these well enough.
Those governments that choose to fight it, will lose out in the endgame.

Ecuador appears to be taking an interesting approach, moving towards making bitcoin contraband, which would allow them to seize any they can (not an easy task though).
One wonders what will happen to any they do manage to steal in that way, they wouldn't be about to auction it like the US has done (in the same way the US doesn't auction the drugs it seizes as they are contraband).