Also I dont think even statis vs change captures the situation. If you like stasis, keep your coins on bitcoin main; if others like cool features they can use them on chains that support them. Why is this a conflict?
I think the conflict is that if one views bitcoin-plus-sidechains as being an economic system, then "just don't use it" is not a valid response. Events in one part of the system may have consequences (including unforeseen consequences) in another part of the system.
[...] sort of bitcoin-backed-coin model [federated peg] that involves some sort of trusted intermediary/intermediaries (what the paper calls the federated model). Nothing prevents someone from making a bitcoin-backed-altcoin [...] Putting aside the rather large issue of backer trust, this is equivalent to a side chain.
I can see the argument. But wouldnt that have effects on main chain also? Wouldnt it be more prone to technical and policy / moral hazard failure?