Here's another way to think of bitcoin, and sidechains. Picture that bitcoins are like digital real estate and you can already add features to your plot of real estate; create coloured coins, burn them (lock irretrievably) to prove mastercoin/counterparty ownership, multisig, smart scripting conditions, etc. People are already building things on their bitcoin plots that increase the value of their own piece, but also the whole value. A sidechain is just another "building project" that is anticipated to increase the value of their piece of sand, and most likely everyone elses.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0395see slide 15-19 specifically.
i just referenced that talk above.
i have a real problem with slide 19 that shows "reversion" or getting your BTC back from the scBTC. as i said above, during a 51% SC attack, the last thing the attacker (miner) will do is include your proof of lock in a block to let you off the SC. he either wants to steal the scBTC or destroy them. most likely the latter, b/c the mere happenstance of the attack will likely destroy all exchange value of scBTC.
Without knowing the specific mechanics of the peg it is meaningless to discuss whether or not the reversion would be successful in the case of mining (or other) attacks. E.g. there might be a timelock on the whole sidechain, so that it is like a 10 year or 99 year leasehold arrangement. There are many ways this could go, dismissing SC outright is denying experimenting and innovation that could solve some of bitcoins problems in tangential ways, even if sidechains are never a success. To me, getting militant against SC seems a bit like the goldbuggery with respect to bitcoins being able to have value as a monetary unit. Keeping an open mind can pay huge dividends, dangers and risks can be mitigated when they are apparent, knowable and quantified.
fair enough. but the flipside is also true; holding out unrealistic promises & capabilities should not be used as an excuse to block or derail much needed MC development that may in fact be more ideal. it never hurts to discuss these concepts.
absolutely, e.g; a chunk of MC dev work is currently being funded by a sidechain research company
, and appears to be the only company funding core infrastructure of MC with a long term view (besides Bitpay's jgarzik) and stated commitments to open, permissionless platforms for innovation, in fact, that is their view of what SC will also allow to stop the energy bleed into alts.
this makes an interesting listen in retrospect (also before Blockstream was announced or fully gestated i expect)
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/e99-sidechain-innovation/well, once again, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
in that LTB interview, Adam talks about altcoin dilution of Bitcoin. while true at the time, i believe it has become much less so. many are dying out in this bear mkt w/o SC's and that is good for Bitcoin.
also, i don't see Gavin going anywhere despite whatever happens to TBF and he confirms this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31rgtb/when_the_foundation_shuts_down_who_pays_gavin/cq4cqq5 and i'd bet this applies to Wladimir as well. being a Bitcoin core dev is a coveted position whether you're formally paid or not.
if Blockstream weren't a for profit entity that has openly stated a desire to create all sorts of SC's, even for gvt currencies, based on a needed source code change then i might understand the concept. but that's not how it is. and no one can accuse me of being an altcoin proponent as an excuse for my objections.
and as far as premature discussions are concerned, it's not like we don't know about the majority of what will be be presented. i mean, Adam was here in this very thread openly discussing all their plans for like a month and a half? we know
alot about the concepts involved. why not debate them?
