Git-Mirrors/mev-toolkit
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/autistic-symposium/mev-toolkit.git synced 2025-08-03 03:36:48 -04:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

💾

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
mvonsteinkirch 2023-02-08 09:08:45 -08:00
parent bf818f2682
commit d3a292bfd1
133 changed files with 26 additions and 40 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

37
MEV_and_trading/bridges/README.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
## bridges
<br>
### centralized
<br>
* Centralized bridges are essentially hot wallets straddling the fence between multiple chains.
* They hold a user’s assets on one chain and issue them a corresponding amount of tokens on another chain.
* Liquidity on both sides is managed by the centralized entity.
* Binance is probably the best example of a centralized bridge operator, straddling the fence between Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain.
* The security risks of a centralized bridge are the same security risks that exist for exchanges and custodians.
* Their primary responsibility is securing private keys (key management), and as a result centralized bridges have proven to be pretty secure.
<br>
### proof-of-stake bridge
<br>
* Proof of Stake bridges are like little blockchain networks narrowly focused on facilitating cross-chain activity.
* Whereas centralized bridges are managed by a single entity, proof of stake bridges are managed by a group.
* They often involve multisigs or some form of escrow mechanism controlled by a group of signers/validators that watch and vote on the ability to unlock corresponding assets on another chain.
* Because POS bridges involve both smart contracts and a group of centralized gatekeepers, they inherit all the code risk of Web 3 and the traditional security risks of Web 2 (key management, access controls).
* POS bridges have the most attack vectors, and have unfortunately been the victims of most of the major exploits.
<br>
### decentralized bridge
<br>
* Decentralized bridges take a proof of deposit from one chain and validate it on the other chain (ex: Polygon Plasma Bridge).
* Decentralized bridges are all code. They don’t rely on centralized signers/validators, so while there’s more code risk, they don’t have to worry about the traditional security risks that POS bridges deal with.
* Decentralized bridges are newer and facilitating less activity than the other bridge types, but there are no known exploits.