Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.
One grammar error is that I believe you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfSome SC opponents believe.
1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined,
MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.
Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.
A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then
SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even
commit to the full verification of all previous
SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest
SC block.
2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin. SC is not new ShitCoin. SC is new service.
We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success for them aka hitching their path to fortunes to the Bitcoin network.