You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase.
I can't understand what you mean.
The problem that you share with brg444 is that you not only make claims which are unsubstantiated and too grand, you also encourage discounting of reasonable risks and concerns. This "answers" criticism without explaining it, which should not be your goal if you are looking for agreement with your position.
I try to use high-level reasoning, for example giving for granted that making "trustless 2wp" is possible (we can't be completely sure, for now).
So, looking at the cryptomoney ecosystem I see that Bitcoin has a clear advantage to any other coin, mainly due to network effect and infrastructure built around it, and that's good.
Bute there are a lot of new coins coming out, and apart from some stupid copycats (most of them), some innovation is being done in the field.
I don't want to have 10 or even only 3 different coins which share the market (and hence bitcoin capitalisation and liquidity), each one filling some gap that bitcoin can't cover (or that it does badly), I would prefer Bitcoin to be "the perfect money".
Now, we know we need to be very, very conservative on the changes to the core protocol because the possibility of breakage, even when minuscule, can cause enormous problems, so we need to research and thoroughly test new ideas before they can be imported in Bitcoin.
Also, almost everyone agrees on the fact that Bitcoin development is too centralized, with a few actors having much greater role of any others in pushing some set of changes.
So, the only way left are lobbying the developers (and we don't want that), or creating completely new altcoins that has to compete with Bitcoin and anyway take liquidity and market cap from it.
Also, even if remote, there is the risk that one of these altcoin, if backed by a big corp like amazon, apple, microsoft & C could really be a Bitcoin competitor in the future: Bitcoin actual market cap is tiny even compared to the size of one the big player market cap.
How to permit innovation in Bitcoin land without some small group of people could veto them for whatever reason it is?
And for innovation in Bitcoin I mean for example: better anonimity, higher TPS, better security, more decentralized mining, and certainly NOT the raising on the maxmimum number of existing bitcoin units and their distribution.
I think that SC can solve this problem: it mantains what is the good of bitcoin (cap on the coins, their distribution and security for who does not want to use new features) and enable permissionless innovation for everybody who want to give it a try.
If a SC which is completely better than Bitcoin under
every aspect can arise, so be it: that will be a better money for everybody, and it can grow up bit by bit without disrupting bitcoin market, infrastructure and its market cap.
Alternatively, a SC which is better than Bitcoin under only some aspects and not all of them will give more value to the whole ecosystem without any drawback: only who is interested in it uses it without taking anything to any other.
I'm unable to envision a way for a SC to destroy Bitcoin, except for the case that we already knows: altcoins.
Every time I read cypherdoc on the subject I'm unable to understand the kind of threat he sees, and it seems to me simply that he is missing the point of what a 2wp gives us.
I'll continue to read the thread with interest to better understand these kind of scenarios, if any, I thank everybody for their contribution to the matter.