related posts
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @netstatic 21 Aug 2023
The problem with this proposal, which is the same with a lot of these proposals, is that it requires new communication paths (sidechain nodes to full nodes) to be established and additional dependencies (nostr). Ark looks like the best contender for having a 2 way peg mechanism for sidechains (with the service provider enforcing the sidechain rules)
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @ursuscamp 23 Aug 2023
Yes. Setting up the sentinel network is definitely the difficult part of deploying a sidechain under this proposal.
The problem with unfederated sidechains is how to allow withdrawals without requiring Bitcoin nodes to run sidechain nodes.
Drivechains, on one end, make withdrawals really slow, giving miners time to receive feedback and nodes to respond indirectly. Softchains, on the other end, use fraud proofs and require sidechain nodes operate on rules similar enough to Bitcoin to allow Bitcoin nodes to validate contested sidechain blocks.
Sentinel chains are designed as a middle ground, where nodes can hold miners accountable directly and automatically, but still don’t need to run sidechain nodes. But the trade off is that they must rely on a network of distributed trust. Making sure the sidechain has broad community support with the desire to hold miners accountable is critical to a particular chain’s success.
reply