Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kyle McCollom
@kyle
I don’t understand Bitcoin L2s or Ordinals outside of cash grabs. It is not meant to be built on. See Lightning. It’s not an asset you want to risk enough to earn yield on. See BlockFi. It’s hard money that you hold, and that’s enough. If you want to build, build on chains built for building.
10 replies
4 recasts
60 reactions
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
With BlockFi et al you were giving up your btc to others. With some Bitcoin L2’s you can lock up your btc and use it on another chain, without risking a central third party being able to abscond with it. Yes there are risks, including protocol failure, but for many it’s worth it for at least some of their btc.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kyle McCollom
@kyle
Is there a near term path to a decentralized Bitcoin L2 bridge beyond a multisig?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
Yes. Stacks is building sBTC. And tBTC already exists on ETH and they’re building their own L2.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kyle McCollom
@kyle
tBTC is just a multisig, yes?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
No. Overcollateralized lending. You don’t have to trust a multisig. You just have to trust that the protocol won’t break in some flash crash scenario (it shouldn’t if it doesn’t have bugs). https://tbtc.network/developers/tbtc-security-model/
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
You also have to worry about collusion between oracles, lenders and depositors. But no it’s not a simple multisig.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kyle McCollom
@kyle
Okay so it’s an overcollaterizaled multisig. Why go through all this rigmarole to jam “things to do” into a protocol whose primary feature is hardness? Why not build on protocols optimized for things to do?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
