The thing about blockchain 2.0 is that the # of people benefiting from it are limited.
Start looking at the various business models of altcoins and you realize a lot become unworkable. (and to be fair most were unworkable without blockchain 2.0)
To allow a certain set of innovations the sidechain's transactions will be not verified by the main btc network. If this is allowed, people will be able to steal equity from other owners of the sidechain.
One might think, "but you could do this with regular altcoins".
In a normal market, you would have to sell the stolen shares to realize your ill gotten gains. With the pegged system you don't. Just grab your BTC and run. With altcoins you would have to find buyers first.
You know, I almost see "blockchain 2.0" as I see vendor lock in. I think it's actually going to be bad for the industry for similar reasons.
People should be able to innovate in new blockchains. I also think it's good to reset the race continuously because that is better for the crypto equity industry.
Perhaps Bitcoin shares may not be $1 million each, but if you have 20 different altcoins with shares of $100,000+ each that's more money in total than just having it be Bitcoin.
The problem with centralizing around Bitcoin is the only thing it does is make the Bitcoin early adopters very rich while centralizing control around that set of developers. This might be fine for people who built up the Bitcoin industry but I don't see how this is any different than a central bank trying everything it can to make it harder for some start up to get past the regulations.
I think we should go in the opposite direction. It should be easy to make new coins, make new blockchains. I don't think we need more shitcoins, but true innovation should be crowd funded or supported somehow.
And I don't think all the funding should come from people who own Bitcoins. There could be a day where Bitcoin is politically untouchable because of some incident or decisions of the development team. Having a diversity of different altcoins actually allows you to have more redundancy in the industry, for sustainable long term growth of crypto markets.
Why is it that we are usually for decentralization, but then we think it's just fine if we see the hints of centralization and control motivation around the Bitcoin blockchain or mining industry?
It's this simple. Some people like the idea of cryptocurrency, and the idea of what it represents politically, but are not going to want to make the Bitcoin early adopters rich.
There are many reasons for this opinion. Such as the fact that millions of coins have been stolen rather than earned. Such as the fact that the mining companies and chip makers are highly specialized and centralized. Bitcoin is becoming too centralized to live up to many of it's ideals and unless they can do this side chain thing in a way which is democratic and not centralized it's not going to work long term.
In my opinion we need competing chains. Bitcoin isn't going to be for everyone. For people who got hacked, lost coins in MtGox, or who tried to mine but lost money because of chip makers hoarding chips, these people might decide they don't want to make Bitcoiners rich and they should have the right to go to a different chain which they consider to be more fair and decentralized.
We always need the right to change from one hierarchy to another if we want to be free. This way if we don't agree with how one is going there can be another. Without the altcoins I don't think Bitcoin will ever become as mainstream as it could become.