tusz
@tusz
Hey @timdaub.eth I just read your "Why I don't believe in a multichain future" piece and I think you approached it from the ETH-native multi-chain PoV. A lot of your criticisms aren't relevant in an actual multi-chain ecosystem like Cosmos. https://proofinprogress.com/posts/2022-01-02/multichain-future.html
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tusz
@tusz
Security issues are mitigated by opt-in shared security (either one-chain or mesh-network); Stong composability via smart contracts (EVM, CosmWasm, Hardened Javascript) & ABCI++. Cross-chain UX is great via IBC and Interchain accounts. Scalability resolved by data-availability sampling.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
I don‘t disagree with you, but by my definition multichain means that there‘s always at least one chain that incompatible with the user chain 😅 „multichain“ So e.g. if we‘d all use Cosmos, then there‘d be a special X chain we‘d have to bridge into or whatever that isn‘t natively integrated into Cosm
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tusz
@tusz
Sure, that makes sense but that chain is probably going to be irrelevant. In reality, the multi-chain future is already here and any chains that are not able to pass light-client verifiable messages to other interconnected chains and don't already have a deep moat can be written off.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
By definition of the multichain idea, there will always be one app that asks the user to bridge into an irrelevant chain and that‘ll always create friction. It’s recursive. E.g. Cosmos (and this isn‘t meant as a front) is irrelevant to me as an ETH user, as is xDai etc.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
