Last week, Ethereum (ETH) co-founder Vitalik Buterin expressed disapproval of the emergence of cross-chain bridges, citing security vulnerabilities due to their interconnection. But in the days that followed, the developers working on the Internet work technologies largely removed his skepticism. In a statement to the Cointelegraph, Kadan Stadelmann, CTO of the Komodo Atomic Exchange, responded to Vitalik’s criticism:
“Ultimately, we need real decentralization. For example, instead of relying on one or two reliable bridges with a single fault point, it would be better to work to ensure that we have many safe, unreliable and surveillance-resistant bridges in the future. . »
Eric Ashdown, Head of Ecosystem Growth at Data Analytics and Covalent Blockchain Indexes, agreed:
Vitalik is smart and it is clear that he is thinking of bridges. But to say that bridges are a bad idea and will not work is the same as the bitcoin community in 2015 saying that Ethereum and smart contracts were a bad idea.
Stadelmann also reiterated that “interoperability across chains is the future” and that multi-chain ecosystem networks such as Polkadot (DOT) and Cosmos (ATOM) and decentralized nuclear exchanges could undermine the economic scale of Ethereum. To support this claim, Stadelmann points to the exorbitant gas charges on the blockchain for why users prefer the alternative.
However, there are unresolved issues with blockchains across chains. Ashdown provides an example of smart contract compatibility where sending a token over one bridge will not have the same contract address if it comes from another bridge. This means that any other person who sends a token through another bridge will not be able to interact with the original tokens sent from the main bridge.