pull down to refresh
We began by using DLCs and atomic swaps. We still leverage some of that cryptography in our systems today, but we realized that the technology wasn’t secure enough for what we needed to build. Some of the technology is promising in theory, but our team has spend years working with it in practice and found that it just didn’t offer the security we needed for our users. That wasn’t a compromise we were willing to make. We needed infrastructure that could safeguard trillions in wealth, and that’s what we’ve built.
Ah sounds like they went another route.
reply
reply
reply
reply
What's a DLC?
reply
Discreet log contract
This is a good place to start:
reply
In the original post, he blamed that DLCs aren't secure enough. But it was highly non-specific...
reply
It is indistinguishable from pr speak. It’s plausible though that they couldn’t construct a robust swap protocol for doing loans with DLCs, and it’s a happy accident that the market overwhelmingly prefers to not hold their own bitcoin.
@MarediaShehzan keeps popping up in my feed too.
Back when I met him in '21, they were pursuing some kind of multisig, with a DLC/oracle to handle the collateral, and atomic swaps. Does anyone know if they still do that?
I can't find any info on that on their website. I'd be kind of disappointed in the market if there wasn't market-fit for that and they had to go another route.