if most of the transactions occur on OT then the danger is even greater for miners considering unlike SCs they do not get to mine and profit from OT, correct?
not really, just think of an exchange, they have many more transactions than the Bitcoin blockchain can process, they have there own servers and internal accounting system (it could there own PoS coin or somthing like the NASDAQ) all OT does is ensure that your balance locked and released when cretin criteria are met with a N of M script your bitcoin can be moved.
in this application it is similar or indistinguishable from a decentralized exchange using SC.
An alternate currency for example - with OT would be a for profit company - say for example a micro transaction currency, what OT would provide is a trust free way to secure your BTC, there internal servers or blockchain ledger would manage the system - risk, demand and competition would keep scales appropriate, and there dev team could trim the block chain as needed. if there micro payment coin was in high demand there would be an exchange rate floated either on the market or set by the company.
but the above example with a SC would run at the prototypical level, and be totally decentralized the design of the coin would most likely be merged mined to incentivise mining, over time it will generate more revenue for miners than Bitcoin, the result is there is a motivation to mine and secure the SC's as they grow, the Bitcoin chain can be MM but if it gets to a point where it docent generate enough revenue because the revenue is generated on the SC, it will leave bitcoin vulnerable to exploration or attack.
this is the trade off with SC, the trade off with OT is market competition, you have to earn you way to the top, you cant boot strap you way up by getting something for nothing (mining) and risking Bitcoins incentive sachem.
and regarding inflation on a SC. yes indeed there could be, but if there is then it becomes much like any other altcoin and this inflation does not affect the BTC ledger.
to be taken in context with the previous discussion, if the SC is more valuable it is a reason not to transfer back.
so yes basically you just confirmed my two arguments.
1. OT is very much more centralized than SC
2. The danger of the majority of txs being handled off blockchain and removing the incentives for miners to mine any network is far greater than them potentially choosing to prefer mining a particular SC other than Bitcoin.
Here is an example where I will use your argument against you.
Consider two solutions : a fast transactions sidechain and a fast transaction OT coin.
Using the first solution, the sidechain, miners are incentivized to mine both chains, the mainchain and the sidechain. In my own, more pragmatic world, they benefit from both as both work in synergy and the potential for the sidechain to take over the main one along with its mining power is slim to none.
But just to entertain your scenario let us assume it does happen and an exodus to this new chain happen. Miners are still providing the security for a new mainchain and are incentivized to do so.
Now using the second solution, the fast transactions OT coin. It could indeed be a cool solution for awhile but since we have to consider both extremes, then we should also assume that by some strech of the imagination users would somehow have no use for the BTC mainchain and want to use only the OT fast transactions coin.
The problem with that scenario is that miners are left with no txs at all to mine. All the transactions are essentially occuring off-chain. Remember this is a scenario you have yourself championed and argued that once the block reward for BTC decreases or disappear then miners would be left with no incentive to secure the chain and would abandon it but this time, without any chain to turn to.
Don't you think that's a bit problematic. Do you see why SC is the better option?
