pull down to refresh
It fractures, so when it is needed, without a PQ solution on L1, how are you going to exit the bridge to, say, open a lightning channel? How is LN going to function at all? How do I send sats to someone on another bridge? And so on, and so on.
So the bridge is imho a stopgap measure, not a permanent fix.
I understand this, and I think that the bridge makes sense if the only protective workaround available on "Q-day" are extremely bloaty signature schemes. I really think that that would be an engineering failure on L1 though, because even the stateful schemes provide imho a better tradeoff than using OP_CAT to protect the masses (which, how I understand it, is also stateful); the mempool pressure would be insane, even with bridges.
So that's why I'm saying could-have. It can work as a hedge against the worst case scenario, but it shouldn't be the solution that says: "yo we can chill now, all is taken care of".
I'm still in favor of GSR, and still in favor of P2MR. Just I want to be extremely cautious about what we label a solution and what we label a workaround.
I like the anti-roadmap. Not sure if I agree with the bridge idea simply because that's not a permanent solution; it's a could-have for me. Also could-haves: CAT/GSR, Cleanup. P2MR may be a should-have now and a must-have in 3-4 years if we were to believe the Googs of the world. Merging that may offer a path to combine with GSR and take that in while we're forking anyway.