I used to be studying some documentation on the Ethereum.org web site on how the Optimism Normal Bridge works (at a high-level, not a developer, only a retail particular person).
From what I acquired out of the article is that the usual bridge is a “easy” mint/burn process i.e., lock up ETH on L1 after which mint the identical quantity of ETH on L2, vice/versa.
It takes 7-days for L2 to bridge again to L1 utilizing the usual bridge (problem interval)?
On the finish of the article, and from observing on the bridging hyperlink, there are third social gathering bridges that allow sooner withdrawal from L2 again to mainnet. Does this work as a result of individuals are depositing/staking their very own belongings and are creating some kind of liquidity swimming pools? Are these third social gathering bridges as secure as the usual bridge, or are they extra centralised and never trustless as a result of it requires individuals to deposit belongings into contracts?
Why would one need to use the usual bridge with the 7-day lock-up? What prevents most individuals from utilizing the third-party bridge apart from liquidity points (assuming that my liquidity pooling concept is appropriate?
Are the entire third social gathering bridges from Optimism to mainnet secure to make use of, or ought to one look forward to audits? There appear to be many third social gathering bridges.
For individuals who present liquidity to third social gathering bridges, is it potential for them to get rugged by the builders?
Additionally, is it potential for Ethereum to implement State Proofs (from Algorand) to assist safe bridging to L2s, or is that primarily cross-chain
