Quote from: Adrian-x on October 30, 2014, 11:50:21 PM

I'm going to quote Justus again

Quote from: justusranvier on October 30, 2014, 10:25:09 PM

Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
.... Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive.

Metcalfe's law was my way of thinking about it, I'm happy for something better to come along, i believe bitcoin is a better store of value because the the economic energy maintaining the ledger stays in the ecosystem. as soon as bitcoins move into a SC the SC benefits with no downside risk, the locked scBTC has no value as the value is in the SC tokens. if it goes bad just get a computer to refund your BTC, if it succeeds then the value is gone for good it resided in the SC, theoretically you can convert it back but why? it seems to me the more SC grow the less valuable BTC becomes.

I don't see how his quote helps you much.

The SC, to me, is part of the ecosystem, unless it issues a different token on its own chain.

I take objections with the kind of statements that suggest it "could go bad". A sidechain using a 1:1 peg of BTC as its unit cannot go bad from my point of view because they are UTILITY chains. Either they execute their purpose as designed or they don't. Only suckers will want to speculate with these type of chains.

I think we all agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and actually pretty close to being perfect as is. As I have mentionned above, its only shortcomings are in its transportive properties : confirmation times and inability to provide private transactions natively. This leads me to believe these two aspects are likely the only ones that who will lead to the creation of utility sidechains that are used as subsets of Bitcoin-money. In all honesty, is there anything more we need from Bitcoin, as a mean of exchange, than faster confirmation time and a privacy option? I don't think so.

Thousands of other sidechains will be created for different purposes but none will be competing with Bitcoin for its position as crypto-money. Some might try, but will realise they will be better off applying their competing idea to an actual altcoin.

Back to my two utility sidechains : these will never take over Bitcoin as they are effectively serving only a certain application or subset of money. Considering these two applications are using a BTC-peg as their transacting unit they are, barring some technicalities, a part of the Bitcoin network and closely tied to the native bitcoin unit, so much in fact that their 1:1 value will always gravitate toward each others and this correlation will become narrower as arbitrage comes into effect and time allows the technology to mature.