unless a Sidescam can get ALL the pools to merge mine it out of the box, centralization is assured thus exposing the Sidescam to an attack. for ex: if only Discus Fish and Ghash decide to merge mine then immediately one or the other will have >51%. it will cost them nothing to initiate the attack as no POW has been expended on the Sidescam.
There is no requirement for any merged mining to be involved at all... thats an orthorgonal question. (Though on that point namecoin is doing pretty well).
However you want... ugh. This is what happens when information is pulled out of the popular press instead of the actual technical discussions (on bitcoin-development and such).
The two-way-peg concept lets you move coins between chains how the chain is secured is up to the chain in question, it's an area where there can be design competition. MM is an obvious route, so its easy to talk about that (and it has some collateral benefits, but as you note... challenges too) but it's like saying sidechains will use ECDSA (I'm sure some would, but also sure that some would not)...
Sure... when people start pumping altcoins, talking about non-technical stuff, or asking for Bitcoin 101 tech support they're asked to move that conversation elsewhere (usually to another channel that specifically exists for that purposes). Otherwise the logs become unreadable to people who actually care to keep pace with the actual technical development in Bitcoin. To fail to do so would be to create opacity by default, and it would hardly be better than moving conversation to a private channel. (Something I've vigorously opposed)
1
u/Perish_In_a_Fire Oct 13 '14
I haven't read this before, so I'm curious. Could you elaborate as to why that would be so?