Let's see a two way peg with test bitcoins and test litecoins at an arbitrary peg. Has anyone created an atomic swap between chains without human intervention?

Thought cypherdoc might like this article by Daniel Krawisz

http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/

I am sort of imagining it as what underlies his arguments that he doesnt like sidechains.

I think cypherdoc likely still mistaken (and Krawisz as ever makes interesting informed economic arguments).

If nothing else for those who view bitcoin as gold2.0 (and I do myself) then its in our interest actually that there not be code churn on bitcoin-core to add micro-payments, fancy contracts etc etc it's better to fix all the bugs, refactor and freeze the code.  Put the code churn onto other chains.  But having the other chains be non-bitcoin denominated detracts from bitcoin.  Hence... sidechains.

Further if extra features can go into sidechains, perhaps along the way bitcoin could do things to reduce centralisation reduce blocksize, and get rid of extraneous existing code complexity by refactoring some things off into a more featureful sidechain.

btw I read Krawisz as more saying investment utility is the predominant driver of bitcoin adoption, transactional uses secondary.

Anyway just some thoughts, not trying to reanimate the sub-thread.

Adam

If you make a  commitment to stick around and address all my concerns instead of lobbing in a comment every hundred pages or so then maybe I'll take the effort to repeat everything I've already said. 

I don't think traditional currency peg apply. The mechanics behind these pegs are not solid and open to the failures you've illustrated.

The situation here is one where a sidechain unit has its equivalent in BTC collateral. A mathematically enforced 1:1 convertibility between both units. Each units' exchange rate value might differ but the protocol dictates that they are exchangeable 1:1 no matter their economic value. That is because for every unit on a sidechain there exist an equivalent amount of BTC locked in an "escrow" type transaction.

Theoretically (I may be wrong) but even if the perceived market value of the unit on a sidechain would come to 0 one could still return is sidecoin for its equivalent in BTC.

Yep, that contorted remark by nullc is painfully naive.  He totally neglects the fact that these SC assets will have a  separate exchange price in fiat that certainly can and will be pumped and manipulated to all sorts of illogical levels. SC's don't solve any of those issues

Please, we have been going over this times and times again. The exchange rate of a properly implemented 1:1 SC asset will, in time, closely track BTC prices for many logical reasons.

If that's a real question, then, but of course.  SC's mechanics are easy to understand. But economically do they work and will they be good for Bitcoin? The answer, I think, is more philosophical.

I think Bitcoin is, and has always been, simply  money. It has gotten to where it has based on economic assumptions of how the blockchain works currently. SC's change all those assumptions. That is a mistake, imo.

SC's would change some assumptions but most certainly not all.

It is also debatable whether those changes will hinder the Bitcoin blockchain or help it thrive.

If people can be lured into thinking their scBTC are BTC (even just 'monetarily'), then yes, that's a danger. The same kind of danger as thinking mtgoxBTC are BTC.

going back to ccc now. side-note: the 'hacker crowd' seems much more open to Bitcoin than a year ago.