papers/lux-universal-threshold-signatures/sections/09-comparison-with-alternatives.tex

\section{Comparison with Alternatives}


\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccccc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{System} & \textbf{Protocols} & \textbf{Chains} & \textbf{Dynamic} & \textbf{Post-Quantum} & \textbf{Signing} & \textbf{Production} & \textbf{Year} \\
\midrule
tss-lib \cite{tsslib} & GG18, GG20 & Generic & No & No & 60ms & Partial & 2019 \\
ZenGo X \cite{zengo} & GG20, EdDSA & 5+ & No & No & 40ms & Yes & 2020 \\
Multi-Party-ECDSA \cite{mpecdsa} & Lindell 2P & Generic & No & No & 30ms & Research & 2018 \\
Threshold-BLS \cite{tbls} & BLS & Ethereum 2.0 & No & No & 5ms & Yes & 2020 \\
\midrule
\textbf{Lux Threshold} & CMP, FROST, LSS, Doerner & \textbf{20+} & \textbf{Yes (LSS)} & \textbf{Yes (Pulsar)} & \textbf{8-40ms} & \textbf{Yes} & \textbf{2021-2025} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}

\label{tab:comparison}
\end{table*}

\paragraph{Advantages}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Universal Chain Support}: Native adapters for 20+ blockchains vs. generic signature output requiring manual integration
\item \textbf{Dynamic Membership}: LSS live resharing vs. static key distribution
\item \textbf{Post-Quantum Ready}: Pulsar lattice signatures vs. elliptic-curve only
\item \textbf{Protocol Diversity}: Four complementary protocols vs. single implementation
\item \textbf{Production Validation}: 100\% test coverage, security audit, real-world deployment
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Trade-offs}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Complexity}: More features require larger codebase (vs. minimal research implementations)
\item \textbf{Performance}: ECDSA protocols slower than BLS (15ms vs. 5ms), but BLS lacks chain support
\item \textbf{Trust Assumptions}: LSS coordinator trusted for liveness (not secrecy)
\end{enumerate}