i'm missing something here.
why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange? and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC? if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.
the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.
Because there is a MATH no 3D party -> how to convert(lock) BTC to scBTC
Rule #1
You can anytime convert BTC to scBTC using this conversion function (if btc protocol is not broken)
repeat(
1. Convert BTC -> scBTC
2. You sell scBTC for $
3. buy more BTC at Bitstamp
)
=> scBTC has only value of BTC (SideChain has value based on BTC)
Rule #2
There is conversion function (MATH) how to convert scBTC to BTC (unlock your/anybody previously locked coins ... if SideChain is not broken => you cannot unlock more, than was locked)
Those rules provide a 1:1 peg. It remains to be seen whether such a peg will be
economically viable. It appears (somewhat) to be technically viable to implement.
Those
particular rules however, are
not required by the side chain concept, as the side chain developers have stated on Reddit and elsehwere. Different rules are possible, which gives rise to all manner of altchains/altcoins.
I think the side chain developers are wasting their time pathologically obsessing over scamcoins, both because scamcoin market value is tiny and because "killing altcoins" or "protecting scarcity" isn't the real value of side chains anyway. The value of side chains is as a safer and faster mechanism for extending and improving (though also damaging I suppose) Bitcoin, if they work.