Jump up ^ Shah, Rakesh (1 March 2018). "How Can The Banking Sector Leverage Blockchain Technology?". PostBox Communications. PostBox Communications Blog. Archived from the original on 17 March 2018. Banks preferably have a notable interest in utilizing Blockchain Technology because it is a great source to avoid fraudulent transactions. Blockchain is considered hassle free, because of the extra level of security it offers.
So if you want to create a more secure Sidechain, we would seriously need to have a look at incentivizing miners in other ways. These could include things such as the Sidechain raising outside funding from investors in order to pay the miners. Staggering mining award so miners have an incentive to keep mining as they will be paid later on rather than at the time or the Sidechain could issue its own mining award on top of the already existing transaction fees and essentially just become an Altcoin.
Congratulations! You’ve just educated yourself on the most common advanced topics in blockchain that you’ll hear about. By understanding these concepts, you have a firmer grasp on the fundamental tradeoffs and latest research on the blockchain than most industry “experts”! Better yet, next time you hear your colleagues around the water cooler talking about state channels, the Lightning Network and Byzantine fault tolerance, not only will you know what they’re talking about but you might be able to teach them a thing or two!
Performance at scale: It is not uncommon for large businesses to process 100,000’s of transactions per second (TPS). Therefore, enterprise blockchains need to scale so that they can deliver performance accordingly. To achieve this, they can compartmentalize processes using containers or similar approaches. Read more about this requirement in this article “Enterprise blockchain ready to go live”.
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.

As an engineer and an entrepreneur, I truly believe blockchain technology is going to revolutionize the world. One of the biggest hurdles we need to tackle in the blockchain industry is scalability. Ethereum can only handle 15 transactions per second. I previously wrote about why that will prevent blockchain from going mainstream and how DAG could potentially be a winner.
“Not only is decentralization, open protocols, open source, collaborative development and living in the wild a feature of Bitcoin, that’s the whole point. And if you take a permissioned ledger and say, that’s all nice, we like the database part of it, can we have it without the open decentralized P2P [peer-to-peer] open source non-controlled distributed nature of it, well you just threw out the baby with the bathwater.” 
Imagine there is a Bitcoin-like system out there that you’d like to use. Perhaps it’s litecoin or ethereum or perhaps it’s something brand new.   Maybe it has a faster block confirmation interval and a richer scripting language. It doesn’t matter.   The point is: you’d like to use it but would rather not have to go through the risk and effort of buying the native tokens for that platform. You have Bitcoins already. Why can’t you use them?
Many people believe this is the future of the blockchain. It maintains network security and allows for scalability. The biggest criticism is that it heavily favors those with more funds as smaller holders have no chance of becoming witnesses. But the reality is, smaller players have no hope of participating in Proof of Work either, as mining from your own laptop at home is no longer a reality. Smaller players get outcompeted by bigger players who have massive mining rigs. STEEM and EOS are examples of DPOS blockchains. Even Ethereum is moving to POS with its Casper project.
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.

Many blockchain enthusiasts believe in the value of networks that are not only decentralized — which most closely resembles the current model of the Internet — but distributed. This includes Tim Berners-Lee, who founded the World Wide Web in 1989. Berners-Lee has proposed that blockchains can be used to reinvent the web in a more distributed and peer-to-peer fashion.


What if we could run heavy computations in a more centralized fashion, say on a single server, and then periodically integrate the results onto the main blockchain for posterity. We temporarily expose some vulnerability while the parallel server runs the heavy computation, but we get a massive benefit in that we don’t have to run the computation on chain, and simply need to store the results for future verification. This is the general premise behind Truebit. We won’t get into all the details of Truebit but there is a concept of challengers, who check to see the computations that were made have high fidelity.
Sidechains solve a lot of problems, but at what cost? The introduction of sidechains makes things even more complex and much harder to understand for those who are not actively involved in the blockchain space. This also divides assets, no more “one chain, one asset” adage, which further complicates things. And on a network level there are multiple independent unsynchronised blockchains interacting with each other.

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.

Recordemos, como hemos mencionado anteriormente, que actualmente son cientos los proyectos y monedas alternativas que trabajan con su propia cadena de bloques, totalmente desconectadas de la de Bitcoin. Todas con su cotización volatil. El problema de estas monedas es que ninguna de ellas dispone del efecto red ni de la seguridad que sí tiene Bitcoin. De hecho muchas, pese a haber implementado propuestas interesantes, se quedan en nada, con miles de horas y esfuerzo “tirado a la basura”. Incluso algunas de ellas han replicado el codigo de Bitcoin, pero también los fallos que en ese momento pudiera tener y mientras que en Bitcoin si se han solucionado, en esa Altcoin no.
2) Yes – I had to keep things short/simple in this intro article in order to get across the key ideas. But you’re right: the sidechains need to be secured. But how that happens is a matter for the sidechain. If somebody can produce a false “proof” that the locked Bitcoins should be released on the Bitcoin side then that’s a problem for the sidechain, of course (somebody presumably just had their coins stolen!) but it’s irrelevant (at a macro level) on the Bitcoin side.
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.”

A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed and public digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the consensus of the network.[1][18] This allows the participants to verify and audit transactions inexpensively.[19] A blockchain database is managed autonomously using a peer-to-peer network and a distributed timestamping server. They are authenticated by mass collaboration powered by collective self-interests.[20] The result is a robust workflow where participants' uncertainty regarding data security is marginal. The use of a blockchain removes the characteristic of infinite reproducibility from a digital asset. It confirms that each unit of value was transferred only once, solving the long-standing problem of double spending. Blockchains have been described as a value-exchange protocol.[13] This blockchain-based exchange of value can be completed quicker, safer and cheaper than with traditional systems.[21] A blockchain can assign title rights because, when properly set up to detail the exchange agreement, it provides a record that compels offer and acceptance.
My chief concern is not with the concept of side chains per se (yet). I have still much to learn about how they are being considered. I am only concerned with the way the concept is being presented here. However, I am sure that much of this was due to space restrictions as much as anything. The concept of side chains is an intriguing one. It is also clearly attempting to address a major problem with the whole Bitcoin scheme- namely the verification latency it introduces for transactions. This is only one of the hurdles facing Bitcoins acceptance into the world of commerce, but it is a considerable one.
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.
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.
A federation is a group that serves as the intermediary between a parent chain and its corresponding sidechain. It is an additional layer in the protocol but serves a key function and is what Blockstream’s Liquid sidechain uses. Due to the lack of expressiveness of Bitcoin’s scripting language, an externally implemented and mutually distrusting set of members form a federated peg.
I have a hard time swallowing that Bitcoin “isn’t a ledger”. That’s like saying “Bitcoin isn’t the blockchain”, and if you take the blockchain away from Bitcoin, you aren’t really left with much (including, sidechains). Perhaps Bitcoin isn’t a ledger *from the perspective* of individual transactions, but by the same logic, nothing that isn’t transaction data is.
Ardor is a blockchain platform predicated on childchains (sidechains) that use proof of stake (PoS) consensus. It uses the primary chain as a security chain and the childchains for processing transactions to increase scalability. Their design is specifically focused on speed and efficiency through PoS consensus and removing blockchain bloat through pruning.
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.
Incorporated in 2009 and headquartered in the USA, Techtic Solutions Inc. is an leading web and mobile app development company known for delivering innovative solutions for any complex problem. Our mission remains the same; “PRODUCE UNPARALLELED TECH ENABLED SOLUTIONS BENCHMARKING LATEST TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS” Facts & Figures: A service provider in over 30 countries with offices in: USA & India 250+ mobile applicatio ... Read more
It is different with a private blockchain (or closed) since the members of the network are selected before being able to download the protocol and therefore use the proposed service by the network. The mining capabilities and the system of consensus as a whole are centralized within the hands of the same entity. A network based on a private blockchain is therefore not decentralized in itself.

First of all, one should not confuse private and public blockchains. They have one obvious similarity – they are blockchains, decentralized networks. Every participant of the network keeps a copy of this shared ledger, and all these copies are kept sync with the help of a certain consensus protocol. It means that all the participants of the network have access to identical information. Also, all the networks are immutable, and the information they contain can’t be altered.
Public blockchains: a public blockchain is a blockchain that anyone in the world can read, anyone in the world can send transactions to and expect to see them included if they are valid, and anyone in the world can participate in the consensus process - the process for determining what blocks get added to the chain and what the current state is. As a substitute for centralized or quasi-centralized trust, public blockchains are secured by cryptoeconomics - the combination of economic incentives and cryptographic verification using mechanisms such as proof of work or proof of stake, following a general principle that the degree to which someone can have an influence in the consensus process is proportional to the quantity of economic resources that they can bring to bear. These blockchains are generally considered to be "fully decentralized".
New organizational structures will emerge that will make inside/outside much less clear. These clear boundaries started to erode with the extranets in the 90s, then with the multi-tenant cloud platforms, and lately with the smartphones and the IoT. As we move forward we will see value chains where participants have multiple roles and affiliations. We will be designing token based systems that produce gains for any participants, internal or external.
A private blockchain on the other hand provides only the owner to have the rights on any changes that have to be done. This could be seen as a similar version to the existing infrastructure wherein the owner (a centralized authority) would have the power to change the rules, revert transactions, etc. based on the need. This could be a concept with huge interest from FI’s and large companies. It could find use cases to build proprietary systems and reduce the costs, while at the same time increase their efficiency. Some of the examples could be:
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.”
The great thing about Bitcoin, for a tech columnist like me, is that it’s simultaneously over-the-top cinematic and technically dense. Richard Branson recently hosted a “Blockchain Summit” at his private Caribbean island. There’s a Bitcoin Jet. At the same time, 2015 has seen the release of a whole slew of technically gnarly–and technically fascinating–proposals built atop the Bitcoin blockchain.
“RSK directly “plugs in” to achieve a perfect merged-mining and to ensure that cryptographic work, that will be discarded in Bitcoin mining, is reused in the first smart contract open-source platform secured by the Bitcoin network. RSK has an agreement with Bitcoin miners: we share with them 80% of the fees arising from transactions made within the smart contract network.”
“What is private blockchain?” is a logical question to ask after you found out that there is no such thing as one transcendental blockchain. What makes private networks different from the public is that only a selected group of people can access them. Hence, a random person has no chance to join a private ledger all of a sudden. To do so, a new participant needs an invitation or permission that can be issued by:

Confidential Transactions — At present, all Bitcoin transactions are completely public, albeit pseudonymous. Confidential Transactions, as the name implies, conceal the amount being transferred to all except the sender, the recipient, and others they designate. The resulting transaction size is significantly larger, but includes a sizable “memo” field that can be used to store transaction or other metadata, and is still smaller than eg Zerocoin.(Note that this isn’t as confidential as Zerocash, which conceals both the amount and the participants involved in any transaction, through the mighty near-magic of zk-Snarks. Mind you, Zerocash would require an esoteric invocation ritual to initiate its network. No, really. But that’s a subject for a separate post.)
@tradles – thanks for taking the time to explain this. OK – so I get the debate around blockchain bloat and the (grudging) inclusion of OP_RETURN, etc., but what I’m missing is that I can only really see one scenario where embedding any identity data into the blockchain makes sense…. and that’s when I want to *associate* an identity with a transaction I’m performing.
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.
However, even this would have its own separate value and wouldn't necessarily solve any issue especially if a market is deemed to be, well, worthless. The two-way peg isn't perfect however. Especially since SPV can theoretically be tricked into crediting more coins than were originally deposited. If the attack will then transfer those coins back onto the parent it would take coins from another user on the Sidechain to fund the imbalance. And in the process create a permanent dissilience between the two chains. In order to strengthen the security of a Sidechain beyond just SPV, it would require the parent to soft fork and upgrade its core wallet software so that both chains can then validate transfers between them.
Sidechain is a blockchain that runs parallel to the main blockchain. It extends the functionality of interplorable blockchain networks. Interpolable blockchain networks signifies the ability to share data between different computer systems on different machines. It means that data can be sent and received between interconnected networks eliminating the possibility of negative impact to the networks. Sidechain enables this to be done in a decentralised manner to transfer and synchronise tokens between two chains.
Consagous Technologies is a prominent name in the blockchain industry for developing secured and robust blockchain solutions for its clients. A highly experienced and technology-driven team at Consagous is well-versed in working on all Blockchain platforms like Hyperledger, Big chain DB, Ethereum and IPFS. Consagous rich experience over wide range of industries coupled with strong technical knowledge of the programmers helps it deliver reliable b ... Read more
– 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.
Alpha functions as a sidechain to Bitcoins testnet. The peg mechanism currently works through a centralized protocol adapter, as stated in the sidechains whitepaper. An auditable federation of signers manages Testnet coins transferred to the sidechain. The federation is also relied upon to produce blocks through the signed blocks element. This creates the possibility of exploring the possibilities of the new chain using different security trade-offs.
draglet is a German company founded in Munich 2013 and specializes in developing Blockchain Applications, Smart Contracts and Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency Exchange Software for businesses. The development team of draglet has been involved in the cryptocurrency world since its initial beginnings and possesses years of experience, providing companies with quality Blockchain applications on a global scale.    

Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains use the ‘proof of work’ (POW) consensus algorithm to provide maximum security. It relies on a process called ‘mining’, which involves nodes trying to find the cryptographic hash of the last recorded block in order to create a new block. This is a massive number-crunching operation. It’s computing-power and energy-intensive, and becomes increasingly costly as the blockchain length grows. Read more about POW in this article “Proof of work vs proof of stake comparison”. This makes such blockchains impractical in a large business context.


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.

Miners are needed to ensure the safety of the sidechains. This makes the formation of new sidechains a costly venture. Hefty amounts of investments have to be made before any new sidechain can be created. Another downside to sidechains is the requirement of a federation. The extra layer formed by the federation could prove to be a weak point for attackers.
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.
Cabe destacar el papel de la gente de Blockstream, una de las compañías centradas en la búsqueda de este objetivo (con un extremeño en sus filas, Jorge Timón). Blockstream está trabajando actualmente en el desarrollo de un protocolo que permita crear sidechains. Son los responsables de uno de los papers más conocidos sobre el tema, publicado en Octubre del 2014:
A federation is a group that serves as an intermediate point between a main chain and one of its sidechains. This group determines when the coins a user has used are locked up and released. The creators of the sidechain can choose the members of the federation. A problem with the federation structure is that it adds another layer between the main chain and the sidechain.

The first work on a cryptographically secured chain of blocks was described in 1991 by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta.[10][6] They wanted to implement a system where documents' timestamps could not be tampered with or backdated. In 1992, Bayer, Haber and Stornetta incorporated Merkle trees to the design, which improved its efficiency by allowing several documents to be collected into one block.[6][11]


The immense promise and accelerated development of permissioned blockchain technology, combined with intense business interest from a wide range of industries, is acting as a perfect stimulant for more and more enterprises to start rolling out blockchain networks into production. I envision these permissioned networks will soon directly or indirectly influence every facet of human enterprise.
×