Well yes I have, to save time, you talk too much  Now if you focussed on constructively and impassively analysing the technology and implications, maybe it'd progress faster?


That is not realistically practical, that is exactly what motivated sidechains as an extension mechanism.
So you wont be against the idea of an extension mechanism per se, just the next bit:


You know, not that I am concretely proposing it, but one could shift the reward as a consensus rule into a singleton sidechain.  Or some proportion of it.  (Simple enough to do: use a peg transaction in the coinbase, and make it a sidechain consensus rule that this be the case).  That might address your incentive concern.

Secondly bitcoin transaction fees will need to surpass subsidy soon enough.  At that point there is little difference.

Bitcoin main needs to plan for that day anyway.

The incentive protection for bitcoin is not absolute: it just raises the cost.  If someone can commit a bigger theft (via double-spending etc) they can pay for the lost mining during their failed double-spends before success.  Bitcoin is already vulnerable to the same pattern of attack, and at times we've had the bad situation of near 50% miners, and certainly 2-3 miners that are overwhelming, and yet it doesnt happen.  Clearly there is meta-incentive at work.  It works because the honest majority want it to work, and miners particularly collectively have $500m+ of equipment at risk.


Another possibility to think about is some people talk about litecoin or whatever as backup plan to bitcoin in case of centralisation or catastrophic bug.  Well a sidechain can fulfil that kind of role also.


Yep.


I posted the article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ which came before the podcast and covers more topics & is clearer IMO.

Adam