52 sats \ 2 replies \ @RedRadish688 OP 17 Jun \ parent \ on: Fedimint vs Liquid bitcoin
In the case of Liquid there are quite a few ways to peg out. Through Boltz, BTSE, Sideswap and others. In this case to me Liquid feels less risky.
How does the presence of multliple swap services reduce the risk of Liquid? In the threats I can imagine for Liquid, e.g. them freezing your assets or liquid getting hacked and L-BTC losing its value, you would also not be able to redeem your bitcoin through these services.
write
preview
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @john_doe 18 Jun
Because it is required that two third of them all decide together to freeze our assets. So the risk is diluted. I assume that by "them" you refer to the watchmen who manage the keys for Bitcoin in the multisig. Personally I would be more worried about assets such as USDt "frozen" than about L-BTC.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @RedRadish688 OP 18 Jun
Because it is required that two third of them all decide together to freeze our assets. So the risk is diluted. I assume that by "them" you refer to the watchmen who manage the keys for Bitcoin in the multisig.
I think we are talking about different things here. What I was saying is, that if two thirds of the federation members decide to freeze your L-BTC, additional swap services will not help you, because in any case you would not be able to send your frozen L-BTC to the swap service.
Personally I would be more worried about assets such as USDt "frozen" than about L-BTC.
With USDt you mean USD-Tether, right? The threshold to asset freezes is certainly higher for a federation like liquid than for tether, but on the other hand if I look at how fast most companies tend to proactively comply when shit hits the fan, I don't think its so much higher either.
reply