pull down to refresh
Sure, but if they are going to call it Bitcoin, and use the kind of language they use to advertise, the implication to me is that its actual Bitcoin that one is "encrypting" (their words).
"Buy this other privacy coin" seems like a more honest way to market.
the concern isn't really with the 1-of-N, but rather with the 3-of-5 emergency spend path. the trust in the system degrades to a security council where we don't know who the signers are.
this is standard for fraud proof bridges as a part of their "decentralization path"
Thanks for the info.
I'm confused what the innovation of Citrea is in this case. I need to go read your BitVM article from January again.
the innovation is that it's unique in the sense that it's happy path is the 1-of-N set up... and that you can get creative with how the security council can spend the funds.
but, it gets pretty complicated to be honest.
As far as I know, they haven't marketed themselves as self-custodial. I asked one of the Citrea cofounders specifically about their "trust minimized" setup - https://x.com/Kruwed/status/2032221603568787501