pull down to refresh
the innovation is that it's unique in the sense that it's happy path is the 1-of-N set up... and that you can get creative with how the security council can spend the funds.
but, it gets pretty complicated to be honest.
imo the biggest concern isn't with the federated bridge set up. it's more with the citrea network not having "forced inclusion" implemented yet.
this means that if the citrea sequencer (a single operator) blacklists the crest smart contract, then users would never be able to 1) make any transaction within the pool or 2) leave the pool
so one entity can censor the entire system
when the network implements this feature, the system will be a bit more trust minimized, but this is not on crest to implement unfortunately
the concern isn't really with the 1-of-N, but rather with the 3-of-5 emergency spend path. the trust in the system degrades to a security council where we don't know who the signers are.
this is standard for fraud proof bridges as a part of their "decentralization path"
thanks for posting here @supratic!
ark implementations are not bullshit. statechains make tradeoffs. 99% of other stuff is bullshit.
still, i'm free to do whatever i want with my time. i've consistently said that LN is the only L2 rn.
yep! i think they just added that. kraken now controls 35% of stake, which is enough to cause liveness failures for signatures
the square thing is a different payy i think?
our work has nothing to do with square. we forked a payments network (called payy) because we liked the user experience and transaction logic. at the time we forked it, it only did stablecoin payments. idk if they're doing their own token or whatever
to be clear, our company isn't doing a token. we're launching our own network as an experiment to get people's feedback on payments with zero-knowledge proofs. we won't bullshit on assumptions, etc. it's only going to support bitcoin-denominated payments