By Michael Scott
After weeks of debate concerning Bitcoin drivechains, an equivalent initiative to crack the potential of the network programming is gaining momentum.
Spiderchain Presents Opportunity to Build Two-Way Pegged Sidechains
On Monday, Jameson Lopp, the cofounder and chief technology officer of Casa, a mobile self-custody company, created a blog post concerning ‘Spiderchain,’ which he identified as ‘yet another proposal for building 2-way pegged sidechains.’
A sidechain is a separate blockchain linked to the primary Bitcoin network in some manner. Basically, they utilize a similar native currency, BTC, and might also take advantage of Bitcoin’s security guarantees. Sidechains grant access to additional features with their Bitcoin that the primary network cannot always offer, for instance, confidentiality, scalability, and programmability.
Nevertheless, a dominant challenge linked to sidechains is developing a ‘2-way peg’ that ensures the safe transfer of BTC to the sidechain and back without needing a central middleman. This is where the Spiderchain, Botanix Labs’s creation, kicks in. Willem Schroé, Botanix Labs’s founder, claimed that it functions as a Proof of Stake Layer 2 on Bitcoin. An individual stakes BTC on BTC in devolved multisigs.
Spiderchains Mirror Ethereum Operations by Leveraging Decentralized Multisigs Management
‘Orchestrators’ are entities used in decentralized multisigs management and run BTC and Spiderchain nodes. Each request to transfer Bitcoin to the Spiderchain entails creating a new multisigs controlled by a random subgroup of 100 members within the staker set. In several ways, Spiderchain’s and Ethereum’s operations are similar.
In this case, it possesses 12-second block times, is compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine, and utilizes a proof of stake consent mechanism to safeguard the network, which entails orchestrator nodes staking Bitcoin to take part.
Further, its EVM is ‘wholly similar,’ meaning developers can easily transfer current Ethereum dapps to the network. However, unlike Ethereum, Schroé claimed that a malevolent majority of orchestrators cannot collude to steal users’ Bitcoin.
Drivechain Fails to Win Market Acceptance Among Bitcoiners
Schroé noted the design’s possibility on the present Bitcoin core, eliminating the need for a soft fork or an elevation. This distinguishes Spiderchain from the drivechain proposal by Paul Sztorc that necessitates altering the Bitcoin code presently mined by miners and users. In 2015, drivechain was launched as BIP 300 and BIP 301, and Bitcoiners are yet to embrace it for implementation widely.
Despite drivechains effectively placing control of pegged Bitcoin into Bitcoin miners’ hands, it ensures the creation of any number of sidechains possessing any number of properties. Further, merge mining enables it to inherit BTC’s security, which attaches to the primary network’s vast proof of work security.
When questioned regarding Spiderchains, Sztorc claimed that compared to his proposal, they appear ‘quite intricate.’ He added that the ‘requires a modification to BTC’ is a total fallacy since people believe it entails the need to improve ‘the network.’ However, it is more about requesting users to install an application on their phones.
Spiderchain Reliant on Centralization Till Users Gain Staking Autonomy
Lopp’s blog post on Monday highlighted the almost decade-old Rootstock proposal and some of Spiderchain’s technical weaknesses. An example is the risk that its Bitcoin peg is ‘broken’ in case the primary Bitcoin blockchain is affected by a reorg of more than five blocks because of the system that determines Spiderchain orchestrators. He claimed that a disaster would be unlikely owing to how funds are distributed across numerous multi-sig wallets.
Schroé also acknowledged that in the early stages of the network, Spiderchain’s centralization will remain centralized until users can stake their Bitcoin. He claimed that it was crucial to start centralized in the sense of initially having the staking authorized.