The Solana-WETH contract is now no longer fully backed, and perhaps your 100 Solana-WETH is now only worth 60 ETH. The attacker deposited a bunch of their own ETH into Solana-WETH and then reverted that transaction on the Ethereum side as soon as the Solana side confirmed it. “Now, imagine what happens if you move 100 ETH onto a bridge on Solana to get 100 Solana-WETH, and then Ethereum gets 51% attacked.
But when ETH is moved across different chains on cross-chain bridges, ETH’s security is now dependent not only on Ethereum, but also on the security verification of the destination chain and any other cross-chain solutions which are used to transfer, wrap and lock up the asset. If your ETH is contained within Ethereum, then it depends only on the security validation of Ethereum’s network. This tradeoff to security happens because the attack vectors of the assets are increased across a wider network surface area as it is moved across an increasing number of chains and decentralized applications with different security principles. From : /tEYz8vb59bįor Buterin, cross-chain bridges are not ideal because they increase the security risks in the process of transferring assets. 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". In a much-publicized tweet this past week, Vitalik Buterin voiced his opposition to the use of cross-chain solutions by Ethereum and other blockchains, in favor of a multi-chain future.
0 kommentar(er)
