Quote from: franky1 on Today at 09:01:26 AM

alot of people think blockchain currency units are created at no cost and so the market can speculate down to zero or up 'to the moon'.

I disagree here. I'll keep it short because it's OT in this thread: for me Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies work like platforms (i.e. social networks). The mining cost is not very relevant for the value creation, it's usage and above all demand for the blockchain. If you want a "cost" to speculate on, I think the most convincing metric would be the volume of fiat/other assets being converted to Bitcoin without being immediately converted back. So I actually don't see a big difference to PoS coins here.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 09:01:26 AM

currently no subnetwork has more then ~6000 coin pegged so i dont see any subnetwork taking on the majority of usage/utility away from bitcoin.

Correct.

A short remark here: I guess there will be always an equilibrium between the coins "pegged into subnetworks" and those that "stay at the mainchain". And it will be always better to have several subnetworks, above all if we talk about sidechains.

If a subnetwork becomes too important without its underlying blockchain providing a convincing amount of security, this could lead into this subnetwork becoming an attractive target for attackers wanting to short Bitcoin (attacking the sidechain's consensus). So I guess that if millions of BTC are eventually locked into sidechains, we could see community action caring about no one of them becoming too strong, similar to what's currently occuring with mining pools (no one should come close to 50%).

We could speculate that this could even lead to the situation where already strong mainnets which have still some space for transactions could become attractive for "layer-2" mechanisms. This is for example the reason why I created a thread about the idea "Bitcoin on Litecoin" (until now, I conclude that it's possible but would require a lot of development work for the protocol). tBTC on Ethereum (pegged to wBTC) is another example, but Ethereum doesn't really have the capacity to accomodate all transactions of a full-fledged Bitcoin "subnetwork", i.e. working as Bitcoin sidechain. LTC would be a more convincing choice.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 09:01:26 AM

as for other mainnets, which pretend to offer more/better/faster features, if you look at their market price movements, most just shadow follow bitcoins movements so there is little independent market sentiment separating other mainnets from bitcoin.

Yes, that's an interesting point. So actually I think Sztorc is too fearful of altcoins being able to "dethrone" Bitcoin.

If we talk only about "features" of the scripting language, Ethereum should have "dethroned" it already but that didn't happen. The market thus thinks that either 1) Ethereum's features are not that relevant and/or 2) Ethereum has some disadvantages with respect to Bitcoin. I think both things could actually be true. The disadvantages being, apart from Bitcoin's first mover advantage, the large premine, the not-complete censorship resistance (TheDAO rollback) and PoS as an inferior consensus system.