They are so focused on proof of work they are missing the obvious. The entire premise of their innovation is that we need this large centralized proof of work system to be secure against government... once it becomes clear that you cannot outspend government on hash power things will change and people will flood to DPOS systems. Perhaps bitcoin will upgrade.
I still contend that the security vulnerability on the side chains is a non-starter.
One of the reasons for the fixation on POW is that it is proven technology, while POS—even though one-vote-per-share has a
much longer history—is still a novelty. This is driven by the pervasiveness of the 'coin' metaphor. Breaking through that, I expect, will involve recruiting a new generation to this field and spinning them up on the share metaphor, rather than relying on bitcoiners to convert. Thus, BitShares could be the 'MacOS' to Bitcoin's 'MS-DOS'.
With regard to side chains,
per se, if the units issued on the side chains are pegged to bitcoins in whatever proportion, then the side chains have to be justified by their technical merits. That pretty much puts an end to the altcoin market as we know it now.
The vast majority of altcoins are just legal replacements for pyramid schemes. Get in early, pump up the price, and hope that you get out before the thing crashes. Some have non-trivial features that set them apart from the rest. Some, like dogecoin take on a life of their own, and no harm done.
Put the altclones on sidechains, and their prices are tied to bitcoin prices, removing the whole point of their existence.
The only way Bitshares X even works is by having a significant external trade volume of Bitshares themselves to USD, bitcoin, etc. in order to establish the margin requirements for the various BitAssets within the chain. The total value of all BitAssets is limited to a fraction of the total value of Bitshares. I see this is one of the biggest challenges Bitshares will have to overcome because with the volatility of altcoins we currently see in the market, automatic margin calls could be triggered often enough to turn people off to the whole idea. If it was backed by Bitcoin, there would be less volatility and a much higher ceiling for total BitAsset value.
So you're right, in a sense, because Bitshares X would essentially become Bitcoin X. I just don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing.
One difference here, is that demand for BTS could be driven by demand for the BitAssets, whereas side chains work the other way around.
If someone wants BitUSD, he or she will need to buy some or buy some BTS and create some. With side chains, one most likely already has bitcoins, otherwise why all the hoopla?
Regardless of the merits of this particular idea, the fact that this idea has seemingly come out of left field is what we should be concerned about.
That belongs on a billboard.
It isn't your pieces or your opponent's pieces on the chessboard that you should worry most about; it's the
invisible pieces that get you, when you aren't looking.