Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.
I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose. This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.
I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC. A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.
My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.
I like your approach but with alts someone gets your Bitcoin, in effect the demand for Bitcoin is inherent in the trade and the Bitcoin network grows as a result scam or not.
With SC your approach is more conservative than with alts, I expect we'd see as many scam attempts with SC as we've seen with alts.
My question is should that feature be enabled at the protocol level when we have technology to do the same thing with Bitcoin on an application layer like OT?
Loved that Unix programming story earlier.
I obviously need to "understand Bitcoin". But for mass adoption this is not necessary. Bitcoin/ledger either works and serves as better money/memory, or it does not. If it does, it becomes the future and will be used by everyone (and everything I see suggests this is exactly what is happening). Most everyone will never understand anything more about bitcoin than they do about http - they will only care that it works, is safe, freeing and reliable. "Education" will happen on its own. 
