The BTC block reward will be more than enough to protect the network for another 20-30 years.

If after that time most transaction fees shift to MM'ed sidecoins to the extent that there are not enough fees on the main chain to support the main chain then one of 2 things will happen, either: 1) Adjustments will be made to shift MM fees from sidecoins to the main chain (after all sidecoins need this too since their protection is based on MM'ing with the main chain) or 2) some side chain will become the main chain since essentially the main chain was abandoned. Note: this wouldn't hurt BTC since at most 21M BTC would transfer over the 1:1 peg.


I only see bitcoin as Sound Money, it is the entire reason I support the project. If the concept is broken in the slightest I will abandon ship.

Sidechain's do nothing to effect the Sound Money aspect. Sidechains are sub-coins that only exist within the 21M supply limit and this is enforced with 1:1 pegging.

Altcoins (meaning new coins outside of the 21M limit) are the only real threat Bitcoin has, because they are the real threat that can inflate the money supply. 1 year ago I saw altcoin's as becoming a real problem and had second thoughts about the project because "anyone can create a coin".

However the past year has shown that network effects are working as intended, and I'm more comfortable with the altcoin threat not being a problem.

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

Sounds awesome to me!  I am perfectly free to use the sidechains I want and ignore those I don't want.  As long as Bitcoin remains a neutral playfield I'm happy as a clam.

I cannot figure out for the life of me what you so-called Libertarians have against freedom of choice and have such a hard time imagining it.  Oh well...Life is full of mysteries.  Since I'm basically force to call myself a Libertarian now I guess I'll just have to ignore the posers and bad apples in the bunch.

so no contest then.

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a  bunch of people cheer, yet they do  nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

ok,
 
2M BTC  / 1,000,000 SCs => 19M of 21M BTC is holded by holders.

Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

no contest, I win, right?


 

WTF in 30 years the block reward will be 0.10 BTC per block. it costs a minimum of $3300 to make one today.
do you know what the price of bitcoin will be? - I dont, but given the existing reward structure I know it will be as impervious to a 51% stack as it is today, change the prototypical intensive and I'm not so sure.  

If there are no SC and Bitcoin needed to support the same security it has today the price of a a single bitcoin would have to sell for over $30,000 just to maintain the hashing power we have today - that assuming no growth, if there is big growth, and we talking trillions in market cap, a block reward will have to be higher, can you guarantee there will be enough hashing power to protect Bitcoin if miners get most of there revenue from another chain?