Quote from: brg444 on October 30, 2014, 05:13:01 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 30, 2014, 04:55:20 PM

fundamentally, i disagree with the core observation of the Sidechain Whitepaper which originally stated (interestingly, it seems they've changed it):

"the core observation is that Bitcoin the blockchain is conceptually independent from bitcoin the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

as i've said since the start of my participation in Bitcoin: Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked and intertwined with its blockchain. the blockchain is nothing without the currency.

i'd also flip that around by saying that Bitcoin the currency is nothing without its blockchain.

given all the potential risks and complexities introduced by Sidechains, are they something we should be serious about?

But they are not saying that in the way you suggest they are. Their point is not that Bitcoin the blockchain doesn't need "bitcoin" the asset but that the asset should not have to be tied only to the Bitcoin blockchain but could, conceptually, be used on other blockchains.

first, some general observations of the current state of Bitcoin. as it is, the MC network is running at its top and peak efficiency. that being,

1. most BTC are being held safely tucked away in cold storage wallets all over the world. this is a result of 5.5 yrs of time, work, and accumulative effort on behalf of these holders/savers. in fact, these saved BTC should be viewed as being held in equilibrium with those BTC being used for more active speculation and day trading. there is a delicate balance going on here from a market perspective which leads to what we call the price. anything that forces those BTC to be mobilized from cold storage would cause severe volatility and most likely a decrease in value as it would indicate a market perception that something significantly different has been introduced into the system.
2. mining hardware and infrastructure build out has gone thru an impressive and exponential rise over the last several years also based on a tremendous amount of work and investment capital put at risk. this is ensuring the security of the entire Bitcoin concept and encouraging savers and speculators to hold their Bitcoin based on the confidence in these miners. this mining, directed solely at the MC at the moment, can also be considered to be in a delicate equilbrium. anything that disturbs this equilibrium will cause volatility and most likely loss in the value.
3. in this sense, one could conceptually visualize Bitcoin as a runaway train that continues to speed ahead, just out of reach of attackers who wish to kill it. it is critical that Bitcoin always stays just that bit ahead of its attackers in terms of its mining capabilities (for security purposes) and in the development of its cryptography (also for security purposes). anything that introduces volatility into this situation and causes Bitcoin to deviate from this continual forging ahead has the potential to derail the entire system as it will destroy value.

the above assumptions have resulted in an optimum distribution of coins for all Bitcoin participants into the MC. this is a good thing, despite how some detractors have tried to label holders/savers as hoarders which, imo, is a blatant attempt at denigration as well as a misunderstanding of Bitcoin economics. i won't go into that debate as it has been flushed out numerous times previously that "hoarders" are not hurting Bitcoin, and may in fact be helping Bitcoin. these peoples willingness to hold and thus value BTC helps support and drive the price upwards. these holders/savers have taken significant time and effort to store these BTC in cold wallets, sometimes in secure locations spread out all over the world. these people represent Bitcoin's most ardent supporters and are encouraged by the current growth in the system, specifically in mining, which protects their savings. having to mobilize these BTC's in the case of economic uncertainty or volatility introduced by a change in the Bitcoin ecosystem will cause these BTC to be exposed to hacking attempts and potential loss in value.

anything or anyone proposing a change to the Bitcoin ecosystem that disrupts this delicate economic mining equilibrium that we have achieved since Bitcoin's inception has to be put under severe scrutiny to demonstrate and prove, as close to a shadow of a doubt, that what they are proposing truly represents ground breaking innovation while at the same time demonstrating that they have considered all adverse economic scenarios that result as a consequence. and with good reason. with close to $5 billion in market cap at risk, an incorrect economic assumption resulting from a mistake in implementing a code change could lead to disaster. in fact, anything that causes increased volatility in this delicate balance has a significant chance of harming current Bitcoin holders.