those who actually use BTC on a daily basis, as opposed to those hodling, will be encouraged to move to the SC's to perform their tx's b/c of the innovations of privacy and microtransactions. those miners on the SC's will be the one's getting paid the tx fees from these users instead of the miners who elect to stay behind on the BTC MC. that's not good for Bitcoin. that's where the draining the life out of Bitcoin comes from as miners will have to defect to the SC to get paid over time.
...
i think he's saying, and correct me if i'm wrong, that it's unethical for Blockstream to capitalize on Bitcoin's success by creating SC's as a competitor effectively. especially when the SC's have the chance to destroy the MC.
Then Bitcoin becomes the central clearing house, reserve & store of value chain while other chains are left to operate daily transactions for better efficiency.
how do you propose the Bitcoin miners get paid over the long run on the MC when the block rewards have been diminished and all the tx's are occurring on the SC's?
People have been proposing this very idea for awhile but assumed the transactions would be handled off-chain by semi-centralized entities. Sidechain removes the need for that.
actually, SC's will exacerbate the problem of tx fees moving off the MC due to the risk free put. at least when they're handled at a centralizaed entity like Coinbase, there is some fear their accts may be seized along with all their BTC, like what happened with Silk Road. at least we have a dampener effect there.
Miners can mine BTC & the sidechain. I'm not sure where you get the idea they have to choose between the two.
over the long run they will have to as block rewards diminish and all tx's are occurring on SC's
As for your last point, I categorically disagree. Sidechains are a neutral, technological proposition. If Blockstream profit from them it is because they will have shown to be considerably useful for the development of blockchain platforms, not because it competes with Bitcoin, this makes no sense.
if they were neutral, they wouldn't be insisting on a change in the source code which uniquely benefits their for profit business model.