There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.
1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.
You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,
Actually I've addressed those several times. And by the way never did he mention the incentive structure. That was YOUR argument. But lemme explain to you again
1.
the answer to the question must be fact and should be indisputable: Does the proposed protocol change to accommodate the SPV proof change the intensive scheme in Bitcoin in any way?
once you have answered that honestly we can debate about how and how much and when and where.
Yes. I believe it actually improves it and enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions even in a future where there will be a demand for features and applications that can NOT be implemented on the mainchain.
please define "improves"
please define "what "enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions?"
Improves:
Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.
It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger
on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect.
Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.
Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward.
What enables :
SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.
It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.
The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization
2. Considering, as I've explained, that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.
It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.