OP Stack

The cross-chain transfer of value, such as ETH from Ethereum(L1) to an OP Stack chains like OP Mainnet(L2), is facilitated by validating bridges, which bear significant requirements + processes to ensure security.

What if these bridges were leaner and more secure? 🧵

1/n

The cross-chain transfer of value, such as ETH from Ethereum(L1) to an OP Stack chains like OP Mainnet(L2), is facilitated by validating bridges, which bear significant requirements + processes to ensure security.

What if these bridges were leaner and more secure? 🧵

1/n

https://warpcast.com/emmanuel/0xabc70ecd

prev. EY-Parthenon | JPMorganChase&Co ||
































Probably doing stuff and things at fastlane.xyz to accelerate the EVM with Monad 🟣

I don’t see how this is any different than a deposit-wrap bridge in practice. If the L2 side of the bridge can mint eth on L1, it’s the same security posture. The only change is that the L2 receives the right to mint tokens instead of the right to transfer them.

Building pods.media to help you collect conversations.

Is this not exactly what a bridge contract already does? It uses the consensus on the L1 EVM to send eth out of itself and to some other party on L1.

Why make every client implement a new storage tree and tx type that could instead be storage in an EVM contract, modified by calls in the EVM instead?

> The only change is that the L2 receives the right to mint tokens instead of the right to transfer them.

A right that is granted with both cryptographic and consensus security, and mechanically extends the Ethereum Ledger outside of the Ethereum blockchain system.

> I don’t see how this is any different than a deposit-wrap bridge in practice.

There is no need for a bridge contract to custody funds, as opposed to a deposit-wrap bridge.

> If the L2 side of the bridge can mint eth on L1, it’s the same security posture.
No L2 can mint ETH on the L1 today.

1/2