Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain.
Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing.
How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again?
Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens.
It makes absolute sense if you go reread my original question which you didn't answered at all.
Liquid is not meant to be used as a P2P transaction system, neither are permisionned blockchain.
The point is that using Liquid is entirely voluntary and if you choose to opt-out and use a purely peer-to-peer network (Bitcoin) you can.
For that you still need the bitcoin blockchain to scale properly.
Indeed.
Fortunately smarter minds have realized this is not done by simply raising the block size
