For example, let’s say we have side chain 1 (SC1) and side chain 2 (SC2). A transaction occurs on SC1. A node in SC1 broadcasts the transaction to nodes in the main chain to record this transaction. The same node of SC1 calls a function from SC2 with a proof. The function in the nodes of SC2 verifies the proof on the main chain. The function gets executed.
The Blockstream Satellite network broadcasts the Bitcoin blockchain to the entire planet. The satellite network provides an opportunity for nearly 4 billion people without Internet access to utilize bitcoin while simultaneously ensuring bitcoin use is not interrupted due to network interruption. Utilizing the latest open source Software Defined Radio (SDR) technologies, the Blockstream Satellite network offers a breakthrough in the cost effectiveness of satellite communications.
Let me explain. The Lightning Network allows for the creation of “micropayment channels” across which multiple Bitcoin transactions can be securely performed without interacting with the blockchain, except for the initial transaction that initiates the channel. There is no counterparty risk: if any party ceases to cooperate, and/or does not respond within an agreed-on time limit, the channel can be closed and all its outstanding transactions kicked up to the blockchain to be settled there.
Anyway, new blocks do not appear on the blockchain all of a sudden – the network must achieve consensus. In other words, each transaction must be validated by the rest of the network members, so-called “nodes.” Their contribution to the final decision on consensus is equal. Each node solves a complex cryptographic problem, and when a solution is found a new block appears on the blockchain. Such algorithm is called “proof-of-work consensus protocol.”
This approach isn’t fool-proof, but it’s not by mistake that the system looks the way it does today (that’s my history degree talking). Despite best technical efforts, human problems remain within the realm of probability. From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/books/15masl.html: “…blame cannot be easily assigned: not even the most sophisticated economists of the era could accurately predict disaster, let alone guard against it. The effects of a public herd mentality at the time of the [insert catastrophe here] are depicted, all too recognizably, as unstoppable.”
2) Yea, blockchain could be a suboptimal MQ Series, a slower append only persistent wire that has a lot of ready-made tools for audit and security analysis (ecosystem argument). As blockchain ecosystem grows all kinds of data transformation tools will appear (e.g. we are working on such). Inside blockchain could be tuned to be less PoW intensive and to cut blocks faster. Besides, the variations of PoS or a hybrid PoW + PoS scheme are emerging which could use the fact that inside, as you say, all network participants can have clear identities, unlike on the public bitcoin’s blockchain.
iQlance is a team of extremely passionate and creative designers, developers and Testers. We strongly believe in culture of developing your passion indulge in your career . we have designers who finds life in your dream and developers who actually bring this life into existence. Having a splendid website & interactive app is indispensable for an intense business growth. Company aspires professionals to achieve their business goals throu ... Read more
Dears, Our company during 12+ years on the IT market actively provide web & mobile software solutions. Till now, we’ve successfully completed almost 200 custom software solutions for companies from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. So, we are always open for new challenges! At all, we are really good at cyber security solutions, web & mobile development and DevOps services. As well, our core expertise inclu ... Read more
Implemented by The initial design was published by Blockstream in 2014, but the implementation is blocked by the lack of native support for SPV proofs in Bitcoin (which may not be added at all). Rootstock workaround this by sacrificing decentralization (still work in progress). The Ardor platform created by Jelurida is the first to propose and implement the concept of Child Chains. Already running on testnet, the production Ardor launch is scheduled for Q4 2017.
What Bitcoin’s development team is essentially doing through feature-creep is forcing everyone in the non-tech world to use Bitcoin through commercial proxies to avoid all this complexity (crypto-what? security? sidechain?), which effectively results in the loss of security, relative anonymity and decentralized properties that helped to make it interesting in the first place.
Always there is a balance in nature, even in blockchains. If you want to have extra features, you need to make a sacrifice from your current features. For example to have high speed and volume; you need to give some from your security & immutability by doing consensus with smaller groups or you need to use different methods in consensus like POS / PBFT. (Proof of Stake / Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance)
As we’ve talked about, writing to the blockchain is slow and expensive. This is because every node in the entire network needs to verify and slurp in the whole blockchain and all the data it contains. Executing a large smart contract on a blockchain can be prohibitively expensive, and doing things like storing images on blockchains is economically infeasible.
When you send Bitcoins somewhere, you lay down the challenge for the next owner. Usually, you’ll simply specify that they need to know the public and private keypair that correspond to the Bitcoin address the coins were sent to. But it can be more complicated than that. In the general case, you don’t even know who the next owner is… it’s just whoever can satisfy the condition.
Our Proof of Work tutorial talks about it in depth, but the best explanation might come from Satoshi Nakamoto himself. If the camps above start receiving messages that don’t agree, they rely on executing a Proof of Work. The Proof of Work is sufficiently complicated and requires significant computing power. Once one camp solves the Proof of Work, it broadcasts the results to the other camps. This message is now accepted in a chain of messages and the competing messages are dropped by the other camps.
These in-channel payments would be instant, unlike current Bitcoin payments, which require an hour to be fully verified on the blockchain. What’s more, payments would be routable across multi-hop paths, like packets across the Internet — so instead of having to create a channel to every new counterparty, you could maintain a few channels to a small number of well-connected secure intermediaries and send/receive money through them.
– The manipulation of the blockchain: It is indeed possible to come back at any time on the transactions that have already been added to the blockchain and therefore change the balance of the members. In a public blockchain, such operation would require that 51% of the hashing power (i.e capacity to mine) is concentrated in the hands of the same entity. This not theory anymore since it happened beginning 2014 when the cooperative of GHash minor reached the 51% threshold.
By contrast, the Bitcoin blockchain is not Turing complete since it has little to no ability for data manipulation. It has no ability for a user to deploy if else or goto statements. This is a bit of a simplification but anytime you hear someone say something is “Turing complete” you can do a quick check to see if there is functionality for data changes, memory changes and if/else statements. If there is, that’s usually what they mean.