Conversation

Austerity Sucks
@austerity_sucks
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
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
3
9
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@austerity_sucks
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
2
2
Austerity Sucks
@austerity_sucks
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
and
@SBF_Alameda
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
1
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.
1
Austerity Sucks
@austerity_sucks
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
and
@SBF_Alameda
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
1
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more