I used to assume linking a BTC wallet and an ETH wallet made an app treat them as one depositor. TBV corrected that.
A peg-in request bundles my Ethereum address, Bitcoin public key, a BIP-322 proof of key possession, my Vault Provider, and a WOTS commitment. Off-chain, I authenticate via a challenge-response anchor. Nothing is accepted just because an interface shows an address — I must prove control before that key attaches to my Ethereum-side vault record.
I still keep my private key. The Provider only assists with setup; it can't move or hold my BTC.
This proof doesn't merge my wallets into one account. I still broadcast the Pre-PegIn transaction and sign release paths on Bitcoin, while requests, secret reveals, and borrowing or withdrawal happen on Ethereum. TBV links Bitcoin-side authority to an Ethereum-side request — it doesn't collapse two networks into one journey.
So: does key proof make self-custody trustworthy, or does coordinating two wallets remain the real risk?
$BABY @BabylonLabs_io #baby
$SNXXB
$MMT
A peg-in request bundles my Ethereum address, Bitcoin public key, a BIP-322 proof of key possession, my Vault Provider, and a WOTS commitment. Off-chain, I authenticate via a challenge-response anchor. Nothing is accepted just because an interface shows an address — I must prove control before that key attaches to my Ethereum-side vault record.
I still keep my private key. The Provider only assists with setup; it can't move or hold my BTC.
This proof doesn't merge my wallets into one account. I still broadcast the Pre-PegIn transaction and sign release paths on Bitcoin, while requests, secret reveals, and borrowing or withdrawal happen on Ethereum. TBV links Bitcoin-side authority to an Ethereum-side request — it doesn't collapse two networks into one journey.
So: does key proof make self-custody trustworthy, or does coordinating two wallets remain the real risk?
$BABY @BabylonLabs_io #baby
$SNXXB
$MMT