OP Stack

The cross-chain transfer of value, such as ETH from Ethereum(L1) to an OP Stack chains like OP Mainnet(L2), is facilitated by validating bridges, which bear significant requirements + processes to ensure security.

What if these bridges were leaner and more secure? 🧵

1/n

The cross-chain transfer of value, such as ETH from Ethereum(L1) to an OP Stack chains like OP Mainnet(L2), is facilitated by validating bridges, which bear significant requirements + processes to ensure security.

What if these bridges were leaner and more secure? 🧵

1/n

https://warpcast.com/emmanuel/0xabc70ecd

prev. EY-Parthenon | JPMorganChase&Co ||
































Probably doing stuff and things at fastlane.xyz to accelerate the EVM with Monad 🟣

I'd like to propose a bridging system for the OP Stack that does NOT require:
- bridge contracts to custody L1 user funds
- the wrapping of ETH in order to utilise on the L2

While still being able to deeply inherit security from the Ethereum core protocol, especially its Consensus and Ledger rules.

4/n

These result in complex bridge designs, laden with numerous third-party processes.

Plus, they don't harness the full security potential of the Ethereum core protocol, relying instead on app-level mechanisms such as fault proofs.(Note:This isn't a knock on fault proofs; they're still valuable for various purposes)

3/n

Today, validating bridges for OP Stack chains involve a few dependencies:

- The necessity to create wrapped versions of Ether on L2.
- The requirement for bridge orchestrators to custody L1 value while it is being bridged, via bridge contracts.
- High dependency on the bridge contracts to enter/exit systems

2/n

Building pods.media to help you collect conversations.

> The only change is that the L2 receives the right to mint tokens instead of the right to transfer them.

A right that is granted with both cryptographic and consensus security, and mechanically extends the Ethereum Ledger outside of the Ethereum blockchain system.

> I don’t see how this is any different than a deposit-wrap bridge in practice.

There is no need for a bridge contract to custody funds, as opposed to a deposit-wrap bridge.

> If the L2 side of the bridge can mint eth on L1, it’s the same security posture.
No L2 can mint ETH on the L1 today.

1/2

I don’t see how this is any different than a deposit-wrap bridge in practice. If the L2 side of the bridge can mint eth on L1, it’s the same security posture. The only change is that the L2 receives the right to mint tokens instead of the right to transfer them.

It's interesting! Trying to steelman the idea: not sure 1559 has much to do with it actually, there is no special process that was put in place for the burn, the ETH paid by a user in base fees is just debited from their account and not sent anywhere

What would happen if the contract that has right to mint gets compromised? Wouldn't it allow an attacker to mint additional eth?