Austin Hill :
The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit
Adam Back :
Obviously no one is encouraging anyone to put real money into untested or buggy sidechains. I dont think there will be lots of sidechains and the main sidechains will be extremely well tested and coded to the same rigor as bitcoin itself.
I believe absent from your paranoiac brains is the ability to recognize such statements and realize what is truly happening here.
Let's make it clear, there are two type of sidechains :
1. The one supported by the sidechains creators : a 1:1 BTC peg adding an additional layer to the BTC currency, effectively preserving its ledger while making possible certain desirable features (anonymity, faster transactions, share issuance, all the good stuff). These are what I like to call "utility" sidechains. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE for these to obtain more value than the BTC chain as they are dependent on it.
2. Altcoins. Yes I could call them sidecoins or whatever the fact is they are altcoins only booted on top of a sidechain. To argue that these cause an inherent danger to BTC is to argue that all altcoins, sidechained or not, are dangerous.
Unfortunately, most in this thread are so shortsighted they can only see #2. This makes me reconsider some of your positions as you have essentially created in your mind a new problem with an old one and for some twisted reason suggest the new one is more problematic and that we should fight it regardless of the value in #1.
It shows some of you are still scared that an altcoin could take BTC over because in reality, that is what
all of your arguments boil down to.