this is where you are very wrong.
the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.
the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.
FTFY, again.
Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition
i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.
it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve. whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away. inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.
LOL you still don't get it do you? Notice the ol' SPVProof/Federated Sidechains switcharoo? See how it fits perfectly in there and remains true?
Got it? Probably not....
Lemme pull the same ol' trick :
it matters not whether the sidechain maintains full reserve. whatever BTC got locked to the sidechain was always there or got "burned" away. inflation applies to what was happening with scBTC on the sidechain which is not the same thing.
cool no?