Ethereum can continue with its POS plans, but should also create and "own" the official Ethereum side-chain.
Shares in Ethereum side-chain will be distributed to Ether holders according to balances at launch time. Dividends, collected by an addition to transaction fee, will be paid to shareholders. The foundation and community will benefit from both chains.
99% of the Ethereum code base - the EVM, the browsers, scripting, development tools, Web3, as well as the DAPs and third-party tools - are all relevant to both chains. The additional effort surly worth the potential reward.
If we had doubts about if or when will Ethereum be ported to Bitcoin, not only in the sense of contracts that are able to move Bitcoin but also in the sense of Bitcoin as gas, then Sergio Lerner's rootstock.io
should end them.
The required Bitcoin protocol change to allow actual 2-way peg is not even deployed yet, but Ethereum sidechains are already being coded. Chances are that this change will be deployed and sidechains will become a reality. There's a lot of talent, funding and influence behind this effort and a good progress was already made. When side-chains happen, Ethereum side-chains also happen, that much is clear. The question is: Will it be the official Ethereum sidechain or will it be third parties.
to the Ethereum sidechain issue few month back. He agrees that Ethereum on a sidechain while might not enjoy all the network effect advantages listed in his analysis, still enjoys quite a few. The importance of two of them - Market depth and Liquidity was wrongly downplayed in the post
[with a] market cap of $10-$100M, the market depth is simply good enough and the spread is low enough for nearly all types of transactions.
What if this transaction type is "deposit Ether collateral to short gold"? Can the ether market with its 24h volume of 1000-2000 BTC support a large position there? No. Big financial DAPs will go where its possible to move millions.
Other advantages are the "Size stability effect" and the "Single-currency preference effect" - but formal definitions aside, its quite clear that Bitcoin powered Ethereum is superior to Ether powered Ethereum given the rest is equal.
Even if Ethereum can't be easily and properly warped as a side-chain by forks without much resources, DAPs might still prefer other side-chain platforms or their own sidechain implementation over Ethereum not because they are better platforms but because of their integration to Bitcoin. Truthcoin is one such example.
The good news - we don't have to decide. Ethereum can continue with its POS plans, but should also create and "own" the official Ethereum side-chain. Two separate chains. 99% of the Ethereum code base - the EVM, the browsers, scripting, development tools, Web3, as well as the DAPs and third-party tools - are all relevant to both chains. The additional effort surly worth the potential reward.
Shares in Ethereum side-chain will be distributed to Ether holders according to balances at that point in time and dividends collected as an addition to transaction fees will be paid to share holders. I leave the exact model to others, but in order to make sense, this fee should be small enough so people prefer to use the official, best maintained, best secured chain rather then save few cents elsewhere.