All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.
I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, heres why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.
Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.
Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.
You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned
This one is amazing.
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.
instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"
Its pretty exhausting because it is difficult to determine what you are trying to communicate.
This post in particular is merely self contradictory rhetoric. It doesn't contain any reasoned arguments.
Parse it yourself and you will see...
Either (a) side chains have no capability to "mess with" Bitcoin, or (b) they are empowered to improve, ensure preservation, and adaptability...
Then, you claim to know the purpose of side chains. As if there is only one purpose that *the people* that create side chains can have. This is an outlandishly impossible claim to make.
Followed by another self contradiction. Either (a) side chains do not change the incentive structure, or (b) they improve it. Both of these can not be true.
I think you should just stop advocating for side chains. You are a bad spokesperson for the cause. People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself.