Because the prices suck so bad, people are crashing out and lashing out left and right. Can you imagine if people lashed out at Vitalik for not founding a DEX, not founding a bridge, not founding a coin launcher that burns ETH, not beating the SEC in court, not making a blockchain time deposit protocol, not market buying deca millions and never selling, not sending advertisements and merch door to door, not giving away free coins, not sending millions of coins to people for marketing on chain, not running free chatrooms, not having a youtube channel, not giving out free books he's written, not founding a couple free infura (RPCs) devs build on and people use. That'd be crazy right?
It's a good thing people aren't ungrateful trash, so they don't harass him.
@RichardHeartWin What’s the biggest misconception the community still has about your long-term vision for PulseChain and HEX, and what do you think people will understand differently 5 years from now
Richard Heart teaches you how bridges work. Example. Chain A to Chain B.
Coins lock on Chain A.
MAGIC
Coins mint on Chain B.
What's this MAGIC step?
Chain B doesn't know what's happening on Chain A, so TRUST must be introduced.
You have to TRUST validators to not collude with each other to lie about what happened on Chain A.
Validators could lie about how much went in on chain A, and inflation bug chain B, then some could bridge back the inflated coins and empty the original coins locked on Chain A.
What if a validator dies?
What if a validator gets hacked?
What if a validator tries to get others to collude with him to lie?
What if a validator holds his validating ransom.
Some people think that there should be a timelock over the power to try and fix the above problems. LOL.
What's the counter balance to the above problems? More trust. You might want some mechanism to add / remove, subtract the quantity of validators needed.
In the end, every single bridge has social risk, just like every single chain has social risk. They're computers, run by humans, on networks, and none of those 3 things is perfect.
You can only buy down the risk of the original sin of chain B not knowing the true state of chain A, by spreading validation geographically, and across parties and hope for the best, but you can't completely eliminate the risk. The largest hacks in crypto history have been bridge hacks.
So now ask yourself, why in this bearest of bear markets does Richard have to teach you about bridges and risks again, for the umpteenth time? As though something has changed? I've been telling you these same exact things over and over again. But I guess some need reminding, or prefer to talk about risk in every thread about benefits. Makes you wonder.
TLDR: All bridges are risk, and when done well, that risk appears to be far lower than centralized exchange risk.
You're welcome for the education. Again.
P.S. Some people have swapped bridged in tokens for native tokens, and enjoyed the experience.
P.P.S. I think some folks find it far easier to post negatively than positively. If y'all one of those, work on yourself. Consider it personal development.