Conversation

i had always hoped that interoperability of chains wouldn't devolve into these kinds of "bridges". always thought it would be cool if the keys lived on chain2 so a simple action on chain2 would move BTC instead we just get tBTC and variations relying on "signers" and bonds...

Quote Tweet

toly

@aeyakovenko

Oct 9, 2020

Brain dump on bridge security: Bridges are nothing special, they are a form of decentralized custody. There are two main attacks: 1. Collusion 2. Intrusion (attackers hijack the private key) And these attacks are implementation agnostic. It makes no difference (cont)

Show this thread

Replying to

yeah you can do it that way -- it's just *hard* though I think not as hard as people make it seem? guessing if we worked on nothing but that for a month we'd have something

Replying to

and

is there a high level whitepaper which actually describes how this is feasible with no handwaving? ive only seen atomic swaps doable, not actual controlling assets on 1 chain from another chain (specifically, btc). guess theres complexities with key generation/network interaction

SBF

@SBF_FTX

Replying to

@austerity_sucks

hm so BTC is way harder than others--would you accept solana <> ethereum? with BTC you have to structure everything as micro-swaps which just makes it massively clunkier for custody like things.

10:12 AM · Oct 11, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

im most interested in BTC because i feel like if it can be done there it can be done between any chains. but it has to be a real bridge, my custody of ETH on Solana should be such that the key to control ETH account is literally on Solana via action i do via controlling SOL key

Replying to

yup -- ETH is way easier than BTC because ETH has smart contracts and BTC doesn't. So almost all chains are similar and easier than BTC; BTC is the hardest by far of common chains. Either way -- I'll DM you some specs