4 ms·
Vitalik warned about cross-chain bridge risk just a few weeks ago: My argument for why the future will be multi-chain, but it will not be cross-chain: there ar
by steelstraw 5y ago
Vitalik warned about cross-chain bridge risk just a few weeks ago:
My argument for why the future will be multi-chain, but it will not be cross-chain: there are fundamental limits to the security of bridges that hop across multiple "zones of sovereignty".
Note that cross-rollup apps within one zone of sovereignty are still fine. Not also that this also is a limit to the "modular blockchains" vision: you can't just pick and choose a separate data layer and security layer. Your data layer must be your security layer.
https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/1479501366192132099 https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/147950136619213209...
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y agoTo be fair the situation he was talking about was that bridges are vulnerable to reorgs/51% attacks on either side and if that happens the bridged asset might lose it's peg, while the local/native asset won't.
- okwubodu 5y agoThis isn’t the quite the scenario he was talking about. The Wormhole exploit is just a bug that could’ve occurred even if the bridge didn’t cross chains. Despite being large, it was still an isolated incedent compared to the multi-chain heist one could pull off with a 51% attack on a single chain.
- woah 5y agoIt's also a pretty dumb article which is very surprising coming from Vitalik. 51% attacks of the sort he describes are (remotely) possible whenever a blockchain interacts with any sort of system, not just another blockchain. In his example, someone uses a bridge to create wrapped Eth on another chain, and then 51% attacks Ethereum, returning the Eth they used to themselves, while keeping the wrapped Eth on the other chain. It's just as easy to have a scenario where someone sends Eth to an exchange, sells it, and then does the same thing.