In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.
So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.
That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks
so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea: we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even
easier to facilitate a thousand more at least. but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!
In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.
Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only.
i'm making this harder? eye of the beholder. i'd say the Blockstream ppl are the ones making this hard. especially when it comes to expanding the block size. i've even heard one of them wanting to let Bitcoin bump up against the 1MB limit just to "see what happens". a cynic would say it's b/c of their for profit bid on the SC concept altho i'll give 'em a pass on their face value arguments about "dangers" to doing so.
if anything, as a vocal Sound Money advocate, you'd think i'd be opposed to increasing the block size to steer Bitcoin towards being a gold like reserve currency which should, in theory, drive its exchange value to the Moon. instead, i'm all for innovation and am willing to compromise with the ppl who envision Bitcoin as a payment network which can only be accomplished by lifting the 1MB limit. that's my compromise for this project as that is how firmly i believe that innovation ought to occur on MC, not SC's.
edit: btw, i didn't see your comment on the exchange graphs i posted above showing that Bitcoin is, in fact, suppressing XCP, Bit-X, and MC