Quote from: cypherdoc on October 24, 2014, 12:44:20 AM

Quote from: Odalv on October 24, 2014, 12:35:23 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 24, 2014, 12:23:52 AM

Quote from: Odalv on October 24, 2014, 12:18:38 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 23, 2014, 11:42:13 PM

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

Hmm, what about an alt-coin
-> if the economic value of ALT starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

that's true but then why should we duplicate that exposure via SC's? in fact, this is worse b/c of all the other conflicts of interest involving core devs i've mentioned in this discussion.

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make result
a) must to have -> feature is implemented
b) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works good
c) scam -> feature RIP

It is one of 1,000 ... advantages of SC

but you haven't addressed JR's complaint in this scenario. b/c 5 of the devs who can commit (2 of which can write) are part of Blockstream, they have a financial incentive to perhaps surreptitiously dissuade thru fillibuster any SC innovations that might ported to Bitcoin Core while continuing to nurture the SC. the economic interest to do this would be if they tpre-positioned themselves in some pre-existing SC asse. and you would never know since ownership would be anonymous.

my point is you can't just say "they would never do this". history is riddled with such flawed reasoning.

They cannot "pre-positioned themselves in some pre-existing SC asset"
a) scBTC have less value than BTC
b) they have advantage in building scAssets infrastructure (this is part, they can make lot of money)