Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

[1714308061]

1714308061

[1714308061]

1714308061

[1714308061]

1714308061

[1714308061]

1714308061

[1714308061]

1714308061

[1714308061]

1714308061

[brg444]

I know they're (federated)  possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.

They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.

Yes, federated models will probably be central to Blockstream business model.

SPVP will facilitate the construction of open-source, public good, platforms/sidechains that will likely be built in cooperation with the community and will allow anyone to leverage their utility and build applications on top of them.

Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities.

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

[BitMos]

You can end the currency quite nicely without ending the country.

As long as the Imperial Armies are standing and agree we can do pretty much what we want. Quantic weapons pose a problem that only true peace can resolve. to get true peace love must be at the center of it. Gold is against peace and love. It destroy the Earth. If you can't live in peace with the Earth that saw you born, what else could you expect, but what you seed is what you are going to ripe.

[Adrian-x]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

[smoothie]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

This is just not true.

That altcoin would have to start with a price of 0 and with a network size of 0. the Bitcoin network will spot any innovation that altcoin might bring and automatically incorporate it out of self protection being open source. Any investors that buy that altcoin will likely lose money just like we've seen with all altcoins today. The network effect of money should insure the fiat money flow will preferentially continue to be directed towards Bitcoin.

MySpace is a terrible example because those social media sites do not involve the network of money which Bitcoin, in its current form, it's set to disrupt everything fiat.

 We just need to keep our eye on the ball.

I can see Bitcoin having a much more difficult time incorporating changes from say a new alt in the future than the alt that creates it first and runs with it.

There is no guarantee that a large # of those using Bitcoin would update to incorporate such new changes/technology/ideas.

Even Gavin has stated previously that any changes to the core protocol of Bitcoin is something to be done slowy and very cautiously over time (meaning not an overnight update will patch bitcoin to be relevant.)

To me that is the reality of such future technological innovations in the crypto space.

But then again that is just an opinion based on what I know of Bitcoin and also what Gavin has stated in previous conferences.

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.

the answer you gave before is b/c "looky, everyone else is trying to develop these!"  that's a fallacious argument b/c it presumes they're correct in their quest that ppl want these things.

i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:



so the reason these other Bitcoin 2.0 platforms are climbing all over themselves to develop these things is b/c they don't know what the hell they're doing and misunderstand Bitcoin and what it represents:  Sound Money. 

[cypherdoc]

Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities.

b/c investors in the BTC unit only have to hodl to win big.  as a deflationary, fixed supply currency, inevitably all the printed fiat in the world today will flow to the most liquid, highly valued SOV, in the long run.  so in aggregate, all we have to do is hodl to go to the Moon.  (and not let anyone change the rules!)

very simple really.

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.
 

No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet.

His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer.

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.
 

No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet.

His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer.

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp.  the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function.    the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them?  these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.

[brg444]

i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:

 

This is beyond stupid.

Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets.

You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value.

Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT !

 

[cypherdoc]

i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:

 

This is beyond stupid.

Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets.

You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value.

Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT !

 

no, eventually we do want that.

but first, Bitcoin has to succeed as money.  it has to continue to grow using the features that we KNOW have brought us to where we are today:  the SOV and money function.  before any of those other things are possible, Bitcoin has to become a more widely accepted and used global digital currency that is seen to compete effectively with other fiat currency choices and w/o gvt support.  we're not there yet.  we are all still early adopters.  

Wall St and outsiders are making every argument they can about why BTC is too expensive and why it won't work or why it needs to be fixed.  they're all excuses cuz they don't want to buy @ $357.  well, that's too bad.  all we need to do is hodl and stay the course.  eventually, they will HAVE to buy in and take us to the Moon.  and then miners will thrive and maintain the security of the MC.

[brg444]

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp.  the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function.    the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them?  these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.

Malware   lol stop spewing nonsense please. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work.

The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about.

Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile.

The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees.

[brg444]

i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:

 

This is beyond stupid.

Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets.

You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value.

Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT !

 

no, eventually we do want that.

but first, Bitcoin has to succeed as money.  it has to continue to grow using the features that we KNOW have brought us to where we are today:  the SOV and money function.  before any of those other things are possible, Bitcoin has to become a more widely accepted and used global digital currency that is seen to compete effectively with other fiat currency choices and w/o gvt support.  we're not there yet.  we are all still early adopters.  

Wall St and outsiders are making every argument they can about why BTC is too expensive and why it won't work or why it needs to be fixed.  they're all excuses cuz they don't want to buy @ $357.  well, that's too bad.  all we need to do is hodl and stay the course.  eventually, they will HAVE to buy in and take us to the Moon.  and then miners will thrive and maintain the security of the MC.

Well then sidechains are a way toward that and in no way do they disrupt the network effect of Bitcoin's money function more than any other alternatives potentially could.

Your concern that sidechains distract us from the money function is asinine. If anything sidechains will create considerable value for the ecosystem which will translate into more demand for the BTC unit.

[cypherdoc]

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp.  the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function.    the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them?  these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.

Malware   lol stop spewing nonsense please. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work.

The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about.

Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile.

The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees.

there are so many dangerous assertions in here that have no proof to back them up.  as i'm the one who's advocating doing nothing, the burden of proof is upon you.

we keep going round and round.

[brg444]

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp.  the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function.    the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them?  these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.

Malware   lol stop spewing nonsense please. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work.

The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about.

Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile.

The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees.

there are so many dangerous assertions in here that have no proof to back them up.  as the one who's advocating doing nothing, the burden of proof is upon you.

we keep going round and round.

 

Let me see.

SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work.

Proof is in the pudding. Yes it implies a change to the miners incentives model but one can certainly argue it is for the better. SPVP is neutral, the subsequent sidechains resulting from its implementation can be used in every possible ways but none that is not already possible through federated models or off-chain services.

So no, it is unlikely that SPVP has a unique ability to spawn some kind of monster-malware sidechain that causes any significant danger to Bitcoin.

The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about.

I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Your attempt at painting the picture in a way that supposedly makes the sidechain "off-ramp" worse than more conventional schemes because the unit is somehow "detached" from the mainchain (even though that is technically not true) is misguiding. The concern is with the value that is stored and whether or not it is stored securely and in a way that reconciles with the main ledger.

Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain.

SPVP Sidechains present an opportunity to respect the Sound Money property of Bitcoin on the protocol level without any additional trust required from outside of the Bitcoin network.

The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees.

Maybe another technology will appear that could rival SPVP (SNARKS?) but I should say it is in fact merged-mining that enables the protection of miners' economic incentives

[NewLiberty]

You can end the currency quite nicely without ending the country.

As long as the Imperial Armies are standing and agree we can do pretty much what we want. Quantic weapons pose a problem that only true peace can resolve. to get true peace love must be at the center of it. Gold is against peace and love. It destroy the Earth. If you can't live in peace with the Earth that saw you born, what else could you expect, but what you seed is what you are going to ripe.

The end of the dollar-as-we-know-it is already baked in.  We are just playing out the rope.  It has nothing to do with Bitcoin, the Empire has done it to itself with a broken model.

Bitcoin is one of the possibilities of preventing the war and despotism, that historically follows when very large currencies fail....

Napoleon after the Assignat hiperinflation
Hitler after the Weimar Republic
Dark Ages after the Roman debasement

Bitcoin brings a hope for peace in the times to come.  The time that any student of history can tell us promises to be the most dire challenge humanity has yet faced.  We just need to can keep it from doing to itself what every other currency does.

[Cortex7]

You can end the currency quite nicely without ending the country.

As long as the Imperial Armies are standing and agree we can do pretty much what we want. Quantic weapons pose a problem that only true peace can resolve. to get true peace love must be at the center of it. Gold is against peace and love. It destroy the Earth. If you can't live in peace with the Earth that saw you born, what else could you expect, but what you seed is what you are going to ripe.

The end of the dollar-as-we-know-it is already baked in.  We are just playing out the rope.  It has nothing to do with Bitcoin, the Empire has done it to itself with a broken model.

Bitcoin is one of the possibilities of preventing the war and despotism, that historically follows when very large currencies fail....

Napoleon after the Assignat hiperinflation
Hitler after the Weimar Republic
Dark Ages after the Roman debasement

Bitcoin brings a hope for peace in the times to come.  The time that any student of history can tell us promises to be the most dire challenge humanity has yet faced.  We just need to can keep it from doing to itself what every other currency does.

Yes, fiat sucks ass, however I refuse to believe anybody launching a fractional fiat system is mathematically retarded enough to think it is long term tennable. I suspect it's collapse was planned in from the start. A very slick way of extracting labor from peons.

The currently collapsing system was a case of "do as i say, not as i do, or feel the wrath!". i.e. if we were to help with "inflation" we would be locked up as counterfeiters.

Bitcoin is a tool that offers a robust solution, but I fear the general population is too idiotic to make it happen. They are too easily swayed by emotional FUD spreading sheisters and they no longer trust themselves, they still trust besuited "experts" though. Their are very few free thinking and articulate men and women left on the planet.

Only a small fraction of a percent of people understand what money is (or what it's supposed to be) they are still like children.

[NewLiberty]

Maybe another technology will appear that could rival SPVP (SNARKS?) but I should say it is in fact merged-mining that enables the protection of miners' economic incentives

Here's the thing, these miner's economic incentives are also what subverts the security of MM SCs.  

The problem here is that SCs are expected to be valuable.

To paraphrase Peter Todd, merge-mining without majority, (or at least near-majority) hashing power of the whole pool of the miners compatible with doing so...an attacker can 51% attack the SC at negligible cost by re-using existing hashing power.  

Namecoin is exceptional because it is a time-stamping service that is a mere public good and perhaps more importantly, not profitable.  So without money involved, the economic incentive to attack it would come from competitive forces (ICANN? LOL!).

Dogecoin-Litecoin?  Another exception.  Dogecoin is just the cutest of all the crypto currencies.  So charity, much wow.  People won't like you much for kicking a dog when its down.  SCs are about the money/assets/privacy, so they have no such immunity.  They are more attractive targets, and potentially much more lucrative.

To release a SC MM'd with Bitcoin, it should be launched with near complete acceptance by the entire mining community of Bitcoin.  (and getting that requires both centralization of mining, and trusting the centralized controllers)

MM is a trade-off.  With merge mining you get protection against all the externals to crypto, in exchange for vulnerability to all the internals, the ASIC armed Bitcoin miners.  It is a delicate balance as to which is the greater risk.  Furthermore, the incentives to attack should be expected to shift as a SC gains value or if a large number of BTC get locked into the SC.  The economics and vulnerability profile are much less simple than you make it sound.

...

The cynic in me would consider whether all the trolling you are doing here is for the benefit of the Blockstream investment pool to get some low-cost Due Diligence work out of us.  The sort of analysis you are getting from some of the folks here is pure gold.