a BTC speculator is convinced by over the top Dogecoin advertising (similar to TC) that he wants exposure to Dogecoin price volatility speculation. he doesn't want to use a centralized exchange. he decides to transfer into the Dogecoin SC via an available 1:1 peg that gives him scBTC in a holding position on the Dogecoin SC. he waits until the appropriate time to convert scBTC-->Dogecoin at his strike price. now he has a position. simple as that. there will be plenty of ppl who might want to do this just like keystroke wants to do with TC. you can't say it won't happen or that it is even a dumb move. it's all a matter of opinion.
my pt is that SC's have done nothing to kill off Dogecoin and may have in fact strengthened it by facilitating the above process via the 2wp.
fair enough, I can see your point.
my problem with you argument is that you suggest because they will not "kill", per say, these kind of altcoins, then sidechains lose their purpose. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
There are plenty of pegged (1:1) use cases for Sidechains that can benefit Bitcoin. I would argue the primary "raison d'être" of sidechains is to enable these 1:1 utility chains.
wow, after 200 pgs we have an agreement.
i would love to see SC's fulfill their primary goal; that of innovating Bitcoin esp for fast tx and anonymity. i just fear the unknown secondary effects, one being the perverse strengthening of altcoins via the bolt on.
how do you propose to assess the efficacy/success of these utility chains over time?