Last week, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum (ETH), expressed his disapproval of the emergence of cross-chain bridges, citing security vulnerabilities due to their interdependence. In the days that followed, however, developers working on cross-chain technologies largely dismissed his skepticism. In a statement to Cointelegraph, Kadan Stadelmann, chief technology officer of the Komodo nuclear exchange blockchain, responded to Vitalik’s criticism:
“What we need in the end is real decentralization. For example, instead of relying on one or two reliable bridges that have a single point of failure, it would be better to work towards a future where we have many bridges that are safe, unreliable and censorship-resistant. . “
Erik Ashdown, head of ecosystem growth at data analysis and blockchain indexer Covalent, agreed:
Vitalik is a wise cookie who has clearly thought about the state of bridges. However, his claim that bridges are a bad idea and will not work is the equivalent of the Bitcoin community in 2015 saying that Ethereum and smart contracts were a bad idea.
Stadelmann further reiterated that “cross-chain interoperability is the future” and that both multi-chain ecosystem networks such as Polkadot (DOT) and Cosmos (ATOM), as well as nuclear decentralized exchanges, could disrupt the economic size of Ethereum. In support of the claim, Stadelmann cites expensive gas quotes on the blockchain as to why users would prefer alternatives.
However, there are unresolved issues around cross-chain blockchain. Ashdown cites one example of the intelligibility of a smart contract, where sending a token across one bridge will not have the same contract address if it crosses from another bridge. This means that anyone else sending a token across another bridge will not be able to interact with the original tokens sent by the main bridge.
Bitcoin 
Ethereum 
Tether 
BNB 
XRP 
USDC 
Lido Staked Ether 
Solana 
Cardano 
Dogecoin 