ππ #ELI5 continues 1/n We talked about TWO models of cBridge 2.0 yesterday and also dived into the design challenges for the self-managed liquidity model.
π§βπ§ Today is we start to break down the solutions. First, we start with the node coordination and operation issues.
3/n cBridge 2.0 solves the coordination problem in the self-managed model with State Guardian Network (SGN). SGN, an essential component in Celer, is a specialized and decentralized PoS chain with CELR staking. Its general purpose is to relay information from L2 to L1.
4/n In Celerβs State Channel construct, it acts as a watchtower to ensure the security of channel states when users are offline. In the Celer layer2.finance rollup chain, the SGN extends as a decentralized block producer network.
5/n In cBridge 2.0βs self-managed model, SGN is extended as a decentralized gateway. When a user tries to bridge funds, her request hits SGN first and then SGN will βassignβ this request to cBridge nodes with the goal to minimize the userβs fee for this transfer.
6/n This design makes the coordination between multiple independent self-custodial nodes very simple: there is no need to have a multi-round communication protocol (e.g. some kind of auction) with significant communication overhead and complex synchronization assumptions.
7/n This also offers great operation security benefits: there is no direct network connection into cBridge nodes nor any direct connection between users and nodes: the information rendezvous point is now SGN and other L1 chains through state query RPC.
8/n It means one can run a cBridge node without even having a public IP (on your home laptop or Raspberry Pi!) or behind a no-port-open network configuration.
9/n But wait, what happens if the SGN-assigned cBridge nodes act maliciously and refuses to serve the requests, i.e. griefing the user? Donβt worry! SGN continues to solve this issue and we will talk about how that works in the next ELI-5 thread!
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In locally verified bridges, since liquidity is also self-managed by the relayers themselves, there is additional complexity in node scheduling and handling griefing as mentioned below (malicious relayer locks user fund). Celer cBridge 2.0 is the first to solve these challenges.
ππ₯³#TGIF and it is ELI-5 time! Today, we talk about the last topic for the self-managed model for cBridge 2.0: how cBridge 2.0's design provides the first-ever solution to the "griefing problem" in the non-custodial bridging system using the Celer State Guardian Network.
1/n So what is βgriefingβ? In the self-managed bridging model of cBridge 2.0βs two models, two steps are always needed for the cross-chain transaction to happen for both the bridge nodes and the user in the following sequence.
2/n Step 1 for the user: make a βtime-lockedβ transfer to the bridge node on the source chain, where only she has the key to unlocking this transfer.
Step 1 for the bridge node: make a locked transfer to the user on the destination chain, using the exact same lock as the user.
ππ§1/n cBridge 2.0 is the first and only cross-chain architecture that allows Liquidity Providers to freely choose between the "self-managed" and the "pooled-together" liquidity models. Today, we talk about some fun design challenges. We will unveil solutions in the coming days!
2/n Under the self-managed, a.k.a "non-custodial", model, LPs hold full control of their liquidity 100% of the time. To make this possible, each LP also needs to run a cBridge node "program" in a server so that they can respond to users' asset cross-chain requests.
3/n Self-managed model has the very obvious benefits of not needing to trust any centralized or decentralized third parties. However, this is also a double-edged sword.