In addition to it having nothing whatsoever to do with Bitcoin, there's their "open" participation in the network, which is only open when you buy SEQ... sounds par for the course for PoS chains, but SEQ is a registered security so you need clearance from the government to hold it. very decentralized
With Liquid, the design has members of the Liquid Federation Functionaries to take turns proposing and signing blocks. You don't want other Functionaries to refuse to confirm the block because they don't want to earn the fees in Asset X, and Liquid's Federation model would be harmed if proposed (valid) blocks aren't getting confirmations.
Sequentia's design is, from my understanding (after a cursory read), accommodating to where there is a market for block candidates and the validators will agree on a choice of one from that market to use. If validators don't want to be paid in Asset X, then they would not agree to a block that has transactions using Asset X for the fee.
I could see how that gets abused though. What if Asset X founder bribes validators to choose blocks where Asset X is paying fees giving those blocks an advantage over other blocks. I didn't read enough on it to know how (or if) that is addressed, or maybe why that isn't a concern.
This just sounds like rootstock without the merge mining, meh this so called L2 just gives me bitcoin affinty scam vibes
And without anything whatsoever pegged to Bitcoin.
Yeah, seeing "engine of hyperbitcoinization" on the main page is rich given that they have literally nothing pegged to Bitcoin.
deleted by author
deleted by author
In addition to it having nothing whatsoever to do with Bitcoin, there's their "open" participation in the network, which is only open when you buy SEQ... sounds par for the course for PoS chains, but SEQ is a registered security so you need clearance from the government to hold it. very decentralized
deleted by author
New Bitcoin sidechain (Sequentia) launches demo signet
That is so sensible that I wonder why Liquid doesn't do that.
Different approaches have different outcomes.
With Liquid, the design has members of the Liquid Federation Functionaries to take turns proposing and signing blocks. You don't want other Functionaries to refuse to confirm the block because they don't want to earn the fees in Asset X, and Liquid's Federation model would be harmed if proposed (valid) blocks aren't getting confirmations.
What are the different types of participants in the Liquid Network?
https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/articles/900002163803-What-are-the-different-types-of-participants-in-the-Liquid-Network-
Sequentia's design is, from my understanding (after a cursory read), accommodating to where there is a market for block candidates and the validators will agree on a choice of one from that market to use. If validators don't want to be paid in Asset X, then they would not agree to a block that has transactions using Asset X for the fee.
I could see how that gets abused though. What if Asset X founder bribes validators to choose blocks where Asset X is paying fees giving those blocks an advantage over other blocks. I didn't read enough on it to know how (or if) that is addressed, or maybe why that isn't a concern.
I found that Liquid can do that through a trustless swap: https://liquid.taxi/
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
Here's another good comparison of sidechains and alternatives (e.g., Taro, wrapped eth tokens, etc.):
Research Paper: DeFi on Bitcoin : Insight DeFi Research
#88582
See also another post, found here on SN, which refers to this paper as well:
Your Thoughts on Bitcoin DeFi
#119143
deleted by author
deleted by author
See also another post, found here on SN, where shared is the github repo for Sequentia:
elements: Open Source implementation for Sequentia
#119075
https://github.com/SequentiaSEQ/elements
deleted by author
deleted by author