Third option is to write your own blockchain protocol according to your needs. You will be able to answer all your what if questions if you design it by yourself. Ripple, Hyperledger projects (Fabric, Burrow, Indy), Corda, Multichain and most flexible and popular one Ethereum can be examples of that option. That option is the most costly and risky one. You have to invest a lot, and after you create your blockchain, you have to find people & companies to use it. Also you need to attract community of developers to upgrade, enhance your blockchain for coming requirements in the future. Above blockchains are the ones I remember immediately, also there are others.
Bitcoin’s block interval is ten minutes so it takes about five ten minutes on average for a new transaction to find its way into a block, even if it pays a high fee. This is too slow for some people so they have experimented with alternative cryptocurrencies, based on the Bitcoin code-base, which employ quicker block intervals   [UPDATED 2014-10-27 to correct my embarrassing misunderstanding of mathematics…]

In this case, you work directly with the given blockchain tools and stack. Assembly is required, so this isn’t for the faint of heart at this point, as many of the technologies are still developing and evolving. However, working directly with the blockchain provides a good degree of innovation, for example in building decentralized applications. This is where entrepreneurs are creating ambitious end-to-end, peer-to-peer applications, such as OpenBazaar (on Bitcoin), or Ujo Music (on Ethereum).

Instant Payments: Since the creation of Bitcoin there has been a race for faster transaction confirmations. Instant payments allow new use cases, such as retail store payments, and transactions in online games. RSK carefully chosen parameters and new theoretical protocols (such as DECOR+GHOST) allow creating blocks at 10 seconds average interval, with low stale block rate, and no additional centralization incentives.

Mastercoin and Counterparty are embedded consensus protocols (or meta-protocols) that use the blockchain to store their transactional data. Bitcoin devs, except Peter Todd who was hired by both teams to help them find a proper solution, are very unhappy, to say mildly, about storing the data on the blockchain. Heated discussions on this topic go on for hundreds of pages on bitcointalk and Mastercoin github issue. Mining pools like Eligius started censoring Mastercoin transactions (not sure if they are continuing with this practice right now, but the operators of this pool are adamant that data do not belong to the blockchain).
The consensus mechanism involves ascertaining transaction validity and uniqueness. Smart contracts address the validity portion. To ensure uniqueness, the protocol program in Corda checks whether any other transaction has used any of the input states of this transaction. If no other transaction has used any of the input states, that this transaction is unique.
A consortium blockchain is often said to be semi-decentralized. It, too, is permissioned but instead of a single organization controlling it, a number of companies might each operate a node on such a network. The administrators of a consortium chain restrict users' reading rights as they see fit and only allow a limited set of trusted nodes to execute a consensus protocol.
Por ello, con este escenario sobre la mesa y con el objetivo de aunar esfuerzos, algunos se han preguntado: ¿Sería posible crear blockchains que sean utilizadas para casos de usos concretos, pero conectadas en todo momento a la de Bitcoin? ¿Podemos crear piezas de software que desde una blockchain se pueda saltar a otra de manera transparente, segura y descentralizada? Esto generaría, para que te hagas una imagen mental, algo así como las ruedas dentadas interconectadas de un motor, cada rueda una blockchain, todas trabajando juntas.
Bitcoin está demostrando un potencial enorme, y desarrolladores de todo el mundo quieren llevar esta tecnología aún más lejos, por ejemplo con los smart contracts turing completo o las llamadas smart property. El problema es que Bitcoin tiene un lenguaje de programación deliberadamente limitado. Además sus transacciones se confirman relativamente despacio, cada 10 minutos. Y ya por último y muy importante, su cadena de bloques está saturándose de transacciones debido a la creciente fama de Bitcoin.
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.
The words block and chain were used separately in Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper, but were eventually popularized as a single word, blockchain, by 2016. The term blockchain 2.0 refers to new applications of the distributed blockchain database, first emerging in 2014.[13] The Economist described one implementation of this second-generation programmable blockchain as coming with "a programming language that allows users to write more sophisticated smart contracts, thus creating invoices that pay themselves when a shipment arrives or share certificates which automatically send their owners dividends if profits reach a certain level."[1]
Existek is full-cycle software development and outsourcing company with proven track record of IT services for small, medium, and enterprise businesses. We provide the fully manageable offshore dedicated development center service for software companies worldwide and custom software development service for wide range of industries including Business Intelligence, Healthcare, and Education.

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.
“Such brazen theft would indicate [1] that Bitcoin would be (in the near future) without sidechains of any kind, and [2] that Bitcoin itself may be in danger from the miners (and we may need to consider using an alternate proof-of-work hash function),” he explained the impact of this setup in his original post on the topic. Like SPV sidechains, drivechains require a soft-forking change to Bitcoin.
The cheapest and most simple option is doing calculations on your local network (off-chain) and integrating with main blockchain by sending the results. It has flaws; you cannot live full advantage of blockchain as we do in bitcoin, because you will still have existing constraints of your current system. Despite all this, it is still a valid option; perhaps you won't need all the features of blockchain technology. Perhaps it is just enough to use blockchain only for your pain points. Factom can be considered under that kind of option. They used bitcoin wisely in their design. They hold the actual mass data in their network and utilize stability of bitcoin in their solution. This project is so successful that at coindesk magazine, it is saying that Factom can be used for the land titles in Honduras. http://www.coindesk.com/debate-f...
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.
Looking for a top private blockchain open source? Here is a list of private blockchain development companies with client reviews and ratings. Private blockchain network on contrary to public and permission blockchain can be run and utilized by one organization only. Additionally, private blockchain platform organizes distinctive components of the technology in order to serve different applications. By prioritizing productivity over the secrecy, permanence, and transparency, private blockchain open source adheres to the qualities normally connected with the technology. The scope of uses for private blockchain might be narrow yet its power to enhance processes are no less important. GoodFirms has thus created a list of top private blockchain companies below:
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.
A public blockchain is a platform where anyone on the platform would be able to read or write to the platform, provided they are able to show the proof of work for the same. There has been a lot of activity in this space as the number of potential users that any technology in this space could generate is high.  Also, a public blockchain is considered to be a fully decentralized blockchain. Some of the examples are:
Consider a proof-of-existence application, where you want to authenticate your document in the Ethereum (for example) network, but you do not need your document to be online. So, you will store the hash generated from your document in the blockchain, but the document itself will be in your local machine, out of any blockchain-related structured, being off-chain.
Perhaps blocks are created faster on that sidechain. Perhaps transaction scripts are “turing complete”. Perhaps you have to pay fees to incent those securing that sidechain. Who knows. The rules can be whatever those running that sidechain want them to be. The only rule that matters is that the sidechain agrees to follow the convention that if you can prove you put some Bitcoins out of reach on the Bitcoin network, the same number will pop into existence on the sidechain.

If you’ve been keeping track of developments in the bitcoin industry, you’d know that the blockchain refers to the public ledger of transactions associated with the cryptocurrency. As the bitcoin ecosystem has grown in size and scale throughout the years, the blockchain has also increased considerably in length and storage size, prompting debates on whether or not to increase its block size limit.
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.
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
Mastercoin and Counterparty are embedded consensus protocols (or meta-protocols) that use the blockchain to store their transactional data. Bitcoin devs, except Peter Todd who was hired by both teams to help them find a proper solution, are very unhappy, to say mildly, about storing the data on the blockchain. Heated discussions on this topic go on for hundreds of pages on bitcointalk and Mastercoin github issue. Mining pools like Eligius started censoring Mastercoin transactions (not sure if they are continuing with this practice right now, but the operators of this pool are adamant that data do not belong to the blockchain).
In general, so far there has been little emphasis on the distinction between consortium blockchains and fully private blockchains, although it is important: the former provides a hybrid between the “low-trust” provided by public blockchains and the “single highly-trusted entity” model of private blockchains, whereas the latter can be more accurately described as a traditional centralized system with a degree of cryptographic auditability attached. However, to some degree there is good reason for the focus on consortium over private: the fundamental value of blockchains in a fully private context, aside from the replicated state machine functionality, is cryptographic authentication, and there is no reason to believe that the optimal format of such authentication provision should consist of a series of hash-linked data packets containing Merkle tree roots; generalized zero knowledge proof technology provides a much broader array of exciting possibilities about the kinds of cryptographic assurances that applications can provide their users. In general, I would even argue that generalized zero-knowledge-proofs are, in the corporate financial world, greatly underhyped compared to private blockchains.
The consensus mechanism is centralized in the hands of a single entity which mission is to verify and add all transactions to the blockchain. A network based on a private blockchain, therefore does not need to use a mechanism such as “Proof of Work” or “Proof of Stake” which are complicated to implement and expensive. The problems of security being much more simple in the case of private blockchains, it is possible to apply the mechanisms of consensus lighter, more effective and therefore easy to deploy such that the BFT.
In this article, I will intent to do a public vs private (permissioned) blockchain comparison. This will include an examination of what exactly the roles of these two types of blockchain really are and why big businesses should quickly move to adopt them. This analysis will look at why private blockchains are better suited to big business use when compared to public ones.
The term “sidechains” was first described in the paper “Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains”, circa 2014 by Adam Back et al. The paper describes “two-way pegged sidechains”, a mechanism where by proving that you had “locked” some coins that were previously in your posession, you were allowed to move some other coins within a sidechain.
Hey there! I am Sudhir Khatwani, an IT bank professional turned into a cryptocurrency and blockchain proponent from Pune, India. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain will change human life in inconceivable ways and I am here to empower people to understand this new ecosystem so that they can use it for their benefit. You will find me reading about cryptonomics and eating if I am not doing anything else.
×