A public blockchain is ideal when the network must be truly decentralized, which means that no central entity controls the entry of the members on the network and the consensus mechanism is democratic. A democratic mechanism of consensus means that all members can become a minor and that these miners are in competition to add the blocks to the blockchain (at least when the mechanism of the evidence of the work is used).
There is a whole other issue of identity theft that needs to be addressed. Just a short note here as this is a big subject: If the private key to identity object is stolen, the true owner of the identity needs to have a way to change the key. One approach to that would be to use the private key of the bitcoin transaction that created the first version of the identity object. Another way could be to prove the ownership of other public keys on the identity object, like the one used for encryption (PGP key management suggests a separate key for each purpose, signing, encryption, etc.). Other non-automatic ways could include a trusted third-party, social proof, etc.
Contrary to popular belief, aided by deceptive blockchain marketing, blockchains are not a good solution for storing data. Each piece of information that you store in the blockchain sits in hundreds or more nodes (more than 100,000 in the case of Bitcoin) making it an extremely costly solution. This is why the Iryo Network doesn’t store data on blockchain but instead, uses blockchain to ensure the transparency of transactions. As a disclaimer, competitors also don’t save medical data on the chain itself (even those who use private chains). Instead, only the fingerprint aspect of a medical record file or a hash is stored on the blockchain.
The Bitcoin White Paper was published by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008; the first Bitcoin block got mined in 2009. Since the Bitcoin protocol is open source, anyone could take the protocol, fork it (modify the code), and start their own version of P2P money. Many so-called altcoins emerged and tried to be a better, faster or more anonymous than Bitcoin. Soon the code was not only altered to create better cryptocurrencies, but some projects also tried to alter the idea of blockchain beyond the use case of P2P money.
By definition, blockchain is a ledger of all transactions that have been executed and could be seen as a write-only platform, wherein transactions once executed cannot be modified later. This platform has been further divided into Public and Private blockchain. Is there a third one? a hybrid mode such as a ‘Consortium blockchain’ as represented by Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, a decentralized web 3.0 publishing platform.
Consortium blockchains: a consortium blockchain is a blockchain where the consensus process is controlled by a pre-selected set of nodes; for example, one might imagine a consortium of 15 financial institutions, each of which operates a node and of which 10 must sign every block in order for the block to be valid. The right to read the blockchain may be public, or restricted to the participants, and there are also hybrid routes such as the root hashes of the blocks being public together with an API that allows members of the public to make a limited number of queries and get back cryptographic proofs of some parts of the blockchain state. These blockchains may be considered "partially decentralized".
Blockstream has also released an “Alpha” sidechain with all of those features up and running except the last, coupled to the Bitcoin testnet. (Used for testing Bitcoin software without putting real value at risk.) In the absence of the Bitcoin protocol change that will cryptographically secure the programmatic transfer of value between Bitcoin and sidechains, they’re cooperating with several external organizations to perform and validate those transfers. If and when that protocol change happens, though, pegged sidechains will be as permissionless, and as decentralized, as Bitcoin itself.
As RSK plans to host all types of clients and smart contracts: financial industry players, educational institutions, large importing companies, government and individuals, which means they are full on attack mode on Ethereum’s business model. There are endless opportunities within a market with unlimited potential and we could now see a first real competitor for Ethereum, that has a big hashrate, secure network, safer environment for developers, much higher throughput and solved scalability issues.
A blockchain is so-called “public” (or open) when anyone can become a member of the network without conditions of admission. In other words, anyone wishing to use the service proposed by the network can download the protocol locally without having to reveal his or her identity or meet predetermined criteria. A protocol is a computer program that could be compared to a Charter in that it defines the rules of operation of a network based on a blockchain. For example, the members of the bitcoin network download the Bitcoin protocol (through the intermediary of their “wallet”) to be able to join the network and exchange bitcoins, but the only condition is to have an Internet connection.
Counterfeiting items is a $1.2 trillion global problem, according to Research and Markets 2018 Global Brand Counterfeiting Report. The rise of online commerce and third-party marketplace sellers have made the crime more prevalent in recent years. Blockchain technology can help consumers verify what they ordered online and what they receive in the mail is what they intended to purchase.
As you know, we at LTP have been doing a lot of research to understand other use cases of blockchain apart from Bitcoin-based payments. Recently we had released a comprehensive analysis of 50+ startups and 20 use-cases of blockchain. Though there have been news of large companies accepting bitcoin (Ex.: Amazon, Microsoft, Dell) and the overall acceptance reaching a 100,000+ merchants figure, upon deeper examination we realize that large corporations do not store the Bitcoin payments. They generally partner with a Bitcoin payment processor who converts the Bitcoins to cash as and when they receive a payment and this converted amount is what the corporates take into their account. What a bummer!
Let's explore if there is a hybrid blockchain concept (third type). A consortium blockchain would be a mix of both the public and private. Wherein the ability to read & write could be extended to a certain number of people/nodes. This could be used by groups of organization/firms, who get together, work on developing different models by collaborating with each other. Hence, they could gain a blockchain with restricted access, work on their solutions and maintain the intellectual property rights within the consortium.
Side chains have two main advantages. Their first advantage they have is that they are permanent. You do not have to create a new sidechain every time you need to use one. Once a side chain is built, it is maintained and can be used by anyone doing a specified task off the main chain. The other advantage of sidechains is that they allow interaction between different cryptocurrencies. Developers get the opportunity to test software upgrades as well as beta coin releases before they are released on the main chain.
Aelf uses a consensus algorithm called DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake) that takes the best of both cooperative and competitive consensus algorithms. DPoS uses votes from stakeholders to achieve consensus. The competitive part is larger stakeholders having an influence on their delegate of choice. The delegates that have the most votes will take their turn to produce a block cooperatively in a sequence. DPoS makes transactions permanent. A rollback isn’t possible so a confirmation can be fast. DPoS is also scalable because anyone can participate in the consensus. Additionally, DPoS is environmentally friendly because electricity isn’t wasted like in Proof of Work.
The main point of a side-chain is to allow cryptocurrency networks to scale and interact with one-another. For example alt-coins and Bitcoin run on separate chains, however side chains allow for these separate currencies to be transferred through these two-way 'portal's or interfaces via a fixed conversion amount. Added benefits of side-chains are different asset classes like,stocks, bonds etc being integrated through a converted price onto the main chain, along with additional functionality like smart contracts,unique D-Apps, micro-payments and security updates that can be later incorporated into the primary network from these side-chains.
Another promise of sidechains is the ability to have a stronger and faster mainchain, as transactions can happen on one of the sidechains. If users or developers are dissatisfied with the costs of sending a transaction and the transaction speed of the mainchain, they can use and or deploy their dapp on one of the sidechains. This leads to a more diversified network and a stronger, faster and more robust mainchain.
Sidechains are responsible for their own security. If there isn’t enough mining power to secure a sidechain, it could be hacked. Since each sidechain is independent, if it is hacked or compromised, the damage will be contained within that chain and won’t affect the main chain. Conversely, should the main chain become compromised, the sidechain can still operate, but the peg will lose most of its value.
A blockchain is a continuously growing list of records called blocks, these blocks are linked and secured using cryptographic algorithms. Each block typically contains a hash (a link to a previous block), a timestamp as well as transaction data. Full nodes validate all the transactions, but are unable to settle the disagreements in regards to the order in which they were received. To prevent double-spending, the entire network needs to reach global consensus on the transaction order. It achieves this by using centralised parties or a decentralised proof of work or proof of stake algorithm (and its derivatives).
For example, Banks A and B often settle thousands of transactions per day. It would be extremely expensive for all of those transactions to be committed to the main blockchain, so A and B set up a side-chain. At the end of each day, at most one transaction is committed to the main blockchain (the only possible outcomes are A and B's balances remain the same, or one of their balances decreases and the other's increases).
Open blockchains are more user-friendly than some traditional ownership records, which, while open to the public, still require physical access to view. Because all early blockchains were permissionless, controversy has arisen over the blockchain definition. An issue in this ongoing debate is whether a private system with verifiers tasked and authorized (permissioned) by a central authority should be considered a blockchain. Proponents of permissioned or private chains argue that the term "blockchain" may be applied to any data structure that batches data into time-stamped blocks. These blockchains serve as a distributed version of multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) in databases. Just as MVCC prevents two transactions from concurrently modifying a single object in a database, blockchains prevent two transactions from spending the same single output in a blockchain.:30–31 Opponents say that permissioned systems resemble traditional corporate databases, not supporting decentralized data verification, and that such systems are not hardened against operator tampering and revision. Nikolai Hampton of Computerworld said that "many in-house blockchain solutions will be nothing more than cumbersome databases," and "without a clear security model, proprietary blockchains should be eyed with suspicion."
Because decentralization has been viewed by many as intrinsic to the revolutionary potential of blockchain, the point of private blockchains might be called into question. However, blockchains offer much more than a structure that accommodates decentralization. Among other features, their strong cryptography and auditability offers them more security than traditional protocols (although not bulletproof, as noted), and they allow for the development of new cryptocurrencies. Furthermore, voting platforms, accounting systems, and any type of data archive can arguably be optimized with blockchain technology. We are still in the early days of blockchain technology, and the power it has to reshape older systems has yet to be seen.
– A cost per transactions which can be high: Miners only participate in the process of mining because they hope to get the reward (coinbase and fees) allocated to minors who have added a block to the blockchain. For them it is a business, this reward will finance the costs they have incurred in the process of mining (electricity, computer equipment, internet connection). Tokens that are distributed to them are directly issued by the Protocol, but the fees are supported by the users. In the case of the bitcoin, for example, minors receive 12.5 bitcoins for each block added, to which are added fees paid by the users to add their transactions to the blocks. These fees are variable and the higher the demand to add transactions, the higher the fees.
Note: Some would argue that such a system cannot be defined as a blockchain. Also, Blockchain is still in it’s early stages. It is unclear how the technology will pan out and will be adopted. Many argue that private or federated Blockchains might suffer the fate of Intranets in the 1990’s, when private companies built their own private LANs or WANs instead of using the public Internet and all the services, but has more or less become obsolete especially with the advent of SAAS in the Web2.
Blockstream is collaborating with industry leaders to create a Bitcoin micropayment system that supports high volumes of instant tiny payments using proportional transaction fees and that operates at the speed of light. We are now developing Bitcoin Lightning prototypes and creating consensus on interoperability. Our c-lightning implementation is the go-to code and specification for enterprise Lightning Network deployments on Bitcoin, and is what powers our easy-to-use Lightning Charge HTTP Rest API.
Public blockchains provide a way to protect the users of an application from the developers, establishing that there are certain things that even the developers of an application have no authority to do. From a naive standpoint, it may be hard to understand why an application developer would want to voluntarily give up power and hamstring themselves. However, more advanced economic analysis provides two reasons why, in Thomas Schelling's words, weakness can be a strength. First, if you explicitly make it harder or impossible for yourself to do certain things, then others will be more likely to trust you and engage in interactions with you, as they are confident that those things are less likely to happen to them. Second, if you personally are being coerced or pressured by another entity, then saying "I have no power to do this even if I wanted to" is an important bargaining chip, as it discourages that entity from trying to compel you to do it. A major category of pressure or coercion that application developers are at risk of is that by governments, so "censorship resistance" ties strongly into this kind of argument.
The need and applications for side chains vary greatly, but Aelf is building an entire infrastructure that allows businesses to customize their chains depending on needs. Financial, insurance, identity and smart city services are a few applications which need their own side chains. Interoperability between those chains is critical. Aelf is paving the way for a new internet infrastructure.
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.
At Iryo, we consider databases and blockchains that are not opened to the public to be insecure they, can easily be altered by the business running it, at their discretion and it goes against the ethos of the open and transparent cryptocurrency space. Designed to keep public out and introducing “trusted” middlemen, private chains forget that trusted third parties are security holes.
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 transactions added to the blockchain are public: the whole world (Member of the network as non-members) can access transactions that are added to the blockchain. The information of the transactions is made public for the miners who do not know the other members, to check the conformity (for example that the person who has created a transaction holds enough bitcoins). These transactions are obviously not nominative, only your public key appears, but if someone knows your public key, he will be able to find all the transactions that you have created.
So, there is a kind of centralized authority that decides who has a right to contribute to and to audit the network. What is more – it’s possible to restrict viewing information stored on private blockchains. It might seem that in such conditions, a blockchain is no longer the blockchain as it lacks transparency and decentralization. Well, these remarks are fair, but only when the network is estimated from the outside. Within it, the rules remain the same as for public networks: it is still transparent for all the members.
There are many critics of payment channels. Finding the quickest path between unconnected nodes is no trivial exercise. This is a classic “traveling salesman” problem that has been worked on by top computer scientists for decades. Critics argue that it is highly unlikely payment channels like Bitcoin’s Lightning and Ethereum’s Raiden will work as expected in practice due to complexities like the traveling salesman problem. The key for you is just to know that these projects and potential solutions to blockchain scalability issues exist. Many of the smartest minds in the industry are working actively to bring them to life.
“The only reason the banks have gotten to the point of thinking about permissioned ledger is because they finally reached the stage of bargaining, third stage in five stages of grief, for industry they’re about to lose. They start with denial, and the basis of denial is, well, this thing isn’t gonna work, it’s gonna die any day soon, and it doesn’t. And then they say, it’s just silly money and it doesn’t have any value, until it does; and no one else is gonna play with it, except they are; serious investors won’t put money into this, except they did; and it still refuses to die. We go from denial to bargaining. Somewhere in between might be anger, some depression, and eventually they’re going to reach acceptance, but it’s gonna take a long time.