🌉 Bridge Mechanisms: Moving Assets Across Chains
Learn about canonical bridges, lock-and-mint, and trust assumptions
Understand the difference between scaling approaches
Your Progress
0 / 5 completed🌉 Bridge Mechanisms & Asset Transfers
Bridges are how assets move between Ethereum and scaling solutions. But the way sidechains and Layer 2 solutions handle bridges is fundamentally different.
🎮 Interactive Bridge Simulator
Step through a deposit process for both bridge types. Use the controls to navigate at your own pace and see the differences.
Lock on Ethereum
Step 1/4Send ETH to bridge contract on L1
🌉 Sidechain Bridges
Trust-based bridges relying on validator multisig or federation.
Typically 5-of-9 or similar validator signatures required
Transfers complete in minutes once validators sign
Assume majority of validators are honest
⛓️ L2 Bridges
Cryptographically secured bridges backed by Ethereum.
Mathematical proofs verify state transitions
Withdrawals wait ~7 days (Optimistic) or minutes (ZK)
No assumption of honest validators needed
🚨 Bridge Security Risks
Sidechain Bridge Risks
- •Validator Collusion: Majority can steal bridge funds
- •Single Point of Failure: Multisig key compromise
- •No Recourse: If validators approve bad transfer, funds lost
L2 Bridge Risks
- •Smart Contract Bugs: Code vulnerabilities can be exploited
- •Sequencer Liveness: Delays if sequencer goes offline
- ✓Trustless Exit: Can always force withdrawal via L1
💡 Bridge Trade-offs
The bridge design reflects the fundamental security model difference:
- 🌉Sidechains: Fast bridges (minutes), but trust validators not to collude
- ⛓️Layer 2: Slower withdrawals (7 days or proof generation), but mathematically guaranteed security