The hardest part of cross-chain bridges is trusting someone. Traditional multi-signature bridges operate on 'trust me'; the BitVM approach is 'don’t trust me, trust the math.' The Bitlayer's BitVM Bridge breaks down the participants in detail on the product page and documentation: Peg-in users lock BTC in Contract A and mint YBTC in Contract B; Peg-out users destroy YBTC in Contract B and withdraw BTC from Contract A; if malicious behavior/failure occurs, the process follows challenge and arbitration paths to impose penalties according to the protocol rules. The entire process minimizes reliance on custodial intermediaries as much as possible. 😇
Why can it be established? Because BitVM allows for optimistic verification under the constraints of Bitcoin scripts: The default assumption is honesty, and anyone can initiate a challenge during the window period, using interactive proofs to expose erroneous states. Industry articles and research regard it as a bridge paradigm closer to trustlessness, significantly reducing systemic risk when committees/multi-signatures are compromised.
Of course, trust minimization ≠ zero risk. You still need to pay attention to:
Limits and Delays: The choice between small fast channels vs. large high-security channels;
Challenge Window: Are there enough observers and incentives during the window period?
Exit Congestion: Batch redemption design in extreme cases. Bitlayer provides layered suggestions on limits and usage on the page, which is part of 'engineering the risk into the sunlight.'
Cross-chain is not about gambling on people's character but about raising the cost of malicious behavior to a point where it's not worth it. The BitVM bridge implements this through protocols and cryptography.
