should be patched with a new workaround in the coming days following federation tech review and further testing. NB known issue, at no time were funds at risk, all backup fail-safe keys are geo-distributed in deep cold-storage with slow elaborate physical security procedures. https://t.co/C6Ep6fOUUH
it's not a security issue. it's a staffing issue.
can you please process these withdrawal requests a bit faster?!!? i'm gonna switch all my business to bilaxy if you keep this up! https://t.co/zbsOGXGQAO
>This is a weird take. These products and services add value to bitcoin.
I agree with that. But it doesn't surprise me that there isn't much engagement on it. Unfortunately, since the promise of trustless two way pegged sidechains never materialized, it makes these services much, much less attractive.
I'm certainly not interested in putting my bitcoin in a multisig wallet that others control, and given some token instead.
>They should be embraced. Like you said it’s optional so why do you care?
I embrace them as a way to reduce main chain congestion. But it's not something I'll ever use under any circumstance.
Hopefully, we get trustless two way pegged sidechains one day. Then I'll be more interested.
Omg can you blame them? Of course they are being paid to develop this they are a business. Why would they do it for free?
It’s a benefit for everyone, traders take pressure off main chain without an extra blockchain and all the crap that that brings with it. Also it doesn’t have to be trustless since the traders are already trusting the exchanges. If you don’t want to use it the don’t! It doesn’t impact you at all. Live and let live otherwise you’ll wither up from all this salty ness.
> Omg can you blame them? Of course they are being paid to develop this they are a business. Why would they do it for free?
I don't blame them at all. And I don't expect them to do anything for free. They need revenue to continue to do the good work that they do.
I'm simply pointing out that they [abandoned the trustless two-way sidechain model that they showcased years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIugzFygviw&t=10m26s), and instead created a permissioned sidechain requiring third party custodial trust. I'm not going to eat a plate of shit and pretend it tastes good.
Like I said earlier, "I embrace them as a way to reduce main chain congestion. But it's not something I'll ever use under any circumstance."
I like how complicated these second layer solutions have become. It's should be a clear sign that there is an issue with the underlying. It's like building a new roof over an obviously damaged house that has structural problems with its foundation which should be demolished instead of built on-top of.
> It's like building a new roof over an obviously damaged house that has structural problems with its foundation which should be demolished instead of built on-top of.
> A complete fix for the issue has been pending a firmware update for the HSMs used by the Liquid functionaries. However, coordinating and deploying updates to the HSMs is typically a difficult process, requiring hands-on access to the devices (this is intentional for security).
"The bug was live for months because our planned fix involved physically interacting with each server in the rack one by one". Fucking what? I mean, they've obviously got security issues to contend with, but if you can't deploy software for months, your process is absolutely fucked. A security scheme that prevents the closing of known holes for such extended durations is more of a liability than an asset