About cypherdoc particularly he said this:
I am not sure if you are aware sidechains are nearly possible with zero changes to bitcoin. Its already programable via the script language. It may even be doable with zero changes with some chained contorted big script to validate compact SPV proofs.
great, then do it if it doesn't involve a source code change. i have no problem with that.
So that seems a little inconsistent to me. ie if this is really a bad idea why would cypherdoc not have a problem with it regardless of whether it required changes or not. I mean if its a principle you'd be arguing to please not do it even though its possible. Or to remove something from the language to prevent it, or put a technical defense preventing it if such a thing existed (seems unlikely but I havent explored it much). Not saying "I have no problem with that."
if you can implement spvp based SC's w/o a source code change, then i can't stop that. i might not like it or agree with the principle but that's where the "I have no problem with that" comes from. tho from everyone's understanding and the WP, you need the spvp obtained via a source code change. what's important to protect, for me, is the mining and investment assumptions that are based on the current code
as it stands. if what you say is true about you being able to implement SC's w/o any source code changes, presumably the market has already factored that into the price and i wasn't aware of that and can't argue with that. but if you do have to change source code specifically to accomplish what you want, then i do know for sure the market will have to adjust to that new information. the effects of that will be unpredictable in my mind and upset certainly my assumption of how the source code was never supposed to change to allow a for-profit company to benefit. i know you say it's generic but you do have a head start in this area along with 5 devs and should establish a monopoly quickly by my estimation. that is, if the idea and concept works. which as you already know, i have my doubts.
fundamentally, none of the technical enhancements to Bitcoins money function couldn't be done on the MC. not easy to gain consensus but it CAN be done. i'm all for that. this is what we have testnet and federated server SC's for. experimentation. esp when we're only at the $4B market cap.
While its possible, its very much harder, and when changes are made its very much riskier and less secure. If you care about the security of your coins you should be for having a firewalled live beta and firewalled extension mechanism (if you support improvements "i'm all for that." you said).
it's not the improvements proposed for SC's that i worry about. it's about speculators like Truthcoin who not only proposes all sorts of assets but also a altcoin (TC) which will ride on the SC.
it also looks like CP and colored coins will bring us other assets to MC. that's good too.
CP = CounterParty. That doesnt bring anything to the chain, other than bloat, its a layered consensus system with its own alt-coin. If you valued the price of bitcoin, probably you'd be better pushing for sidechains than CP because its bitcoin denominated and increases demand and features for bitcoin.
as i understand CP, it's just an embedded hash into a 40 byte op_return that originally was 80 bytes. they were able to compensate so how is that a problem?
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
No they spent more time on core than before, because they quit their full time jobs/occupation and Mark said somewhere else on reddit he figured they'd spent 50% of their time at blockstream on core. (Unrelated to sidechains most of it .. eg in Pieter's case the headers-first speed up you were mentioning, though he's been working on that for a long time). You could check by looking at bitcoin github, there's a stats page.
hmmm
fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.
I fail to see the connection between sound money and an ability to freeze coins with an spv-multisig instead of a multisig.
Bitcoin is protected with a firewall from features on the sidechain. The bitcoins never leave the chain, they're just frozen in an spv-multisig instead of a multisig. Lots of people are using multisigs, daily, to effectively do the same thing, its more secure to do it with an spv-multisig. Lots of people are not even doing that, they're using pure offchain in a shared wallet, for reasons that in time could be fixed on sidechains and then with a year of live testing with $1b on it kind of assurance, ported back into bitcoin main.
i know you've been saying they're equivalent for a while now but i see a difference. multisig is currently used just for security purposes as in 2of3. when necessary, the funds at those addresses can be mobilized immediately, no 2 day delay. the p2sh used to facilitate these multisigs are not meant to reanimate scBTC on the other side of a 2wp as in your proposal. with your 2wp (spvp), there is an entire "industry" awaiting on the other side of the 2wp that you wish to capitalize on. i don't like the concept you used earlier of the BTC
still being on the MC. i see the 2wp as a "pass through" that reanimates those BTC into scBTC on a SC which then facilitates all sorts of speculation and trading of assets or even scCOINS like TC. the SC's can be anything at all as you've described it and it's BS business plan to sell these newly designed and constructed SC's to willing buyers and maybe even gvt's as you've said. i think that is risky.
and then there's the whole mining thing. i'm not sure if you addressed some of my concerns above regarding attacks.