A colossal no show
So, it's hard to create complex stuff in BCH mainchain because it's not built for that. It's built to be the best currency, not the best infrastructure for decentralized applications.
The way I see it, a basic token is just like a currency. Then, EVMs can be centralized services/ sidechains that service bch + tokens. And there could be many, each with their own trusted gateway(s). This way, you get the benefits of evm sidechains and mainchain currency Tokens, without repeating the whole sbch fiasco. So, there can be multiple exchanges competing and maybe different EVMs providing different services for different bchTokens. So sidechains service the main chain in a multitude of different ways- each one entrepreneurial But the main bch chain just transacts the bch and the basic tokens to provide them that decentralized security.
1. There is no such sbch fiasco 2. Nothing prevents anyone to create multiple sidechains to BCH 2. Nothing prevents anyone to create tokens in mainchain (SLP) and bridge them to any of those sidechains So, what you're describing is possible, but people choose to do what they want. Also, not everything needs a token. There can be decentralized apps that don't use tokens (despite many people's belief) to fulfill their goals.
Plus things like anyhedge. I don't know the exact balance. But say, I run a central bank and I want to tokenize 100k units of currency onto bch. If it's easy to do and secure, then I can use other tools like anyhedge to help stabilize that currency. But the avg user of my currency doesn't need to figure all that out, they just use the main chain token currency. And if they wanna go to the gambling house, that's an evm sidechain
If you think sBCH is for creating tokens, then you're missing the real point of it
1. Well its frozen and backing is questionable, so I'd call that a fiasco. 2. 👍 Yes I agree
No I see EVMs have many different functions. I'm saying tokens should stay main chain so they are secured by the decentralization and keys are maintained
Yeah, sBCH is in a transitional state right now, not in its final form. The Coinflex bridge was/is a temporary solution in order to get 1 year of building as we did and not start in late 2022 with the first products. At least I think that was the rationale and I think it was risky but correct.
Hmm now that's interesting. Anyway, you can always create a token in any of both sides and then bridge from one to another. You'd need to create a replica in any case, so you can consider the original to be any one of both I guess.
The first implementation highlighted the risks and what to avoid in the future. And the importance of Tokens being mainchain imo
Tokens in mainchain that are bridged to a sidechain are tied to the sidechain's future. Once tokens are locked in mainchain and working in the sidechain, if the sidechain fails, you lose the tokens (if implemented correctly)
That's the logical fallacy imo. The valuable one is always main chain. The sidechains service the main chain. When the sidechain starts competing w/ undermining the main chain it is problematic for all. Hence, having multiple sidechains would help prevent that I think
Having multiple sidechains can be a thing, nothing prevents that from happening. Anyone can assemble a team, find validators and launch it even if it's hard. But sidechains don't undermine mainchain and I think exactly the opposite. We had that argument already and we can't convince each other 😅
What you wrote here is accurate. That's how the interactions will be
Tokens can be on any chain. It can't be stopped
Holders of sidechain tokens can be reimbursed from the main chain if that sidechain dies and if the main chain token maintains integrity
Обсуждают сегодня