@gendal, good question. Think of the identity hash as a bitcoin address, it is indeed public. So to assert anything with this identity you need to sign the object you are creating or changing with the identity’s private key. Specifically it is a private key that corresponds to a public key that you published in your identity’s object (json). The signature is not placed on the bitcoin transaction, as OP_RETURN has only 40 bytes. The signature is added to a [json] object that is modified with this identity. If you see any fault with this, please let me know.
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.

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.


Step back from the details for moment and consider what’s been described.  We now have a way to move coins from Bitcoin onto another platform (a sidechain) and move them back again.   That’s pretty much what we do when we move them to a wallet platform or an exchange.  The difference is that the “platform” they’ve been moved to is also a blockchain… so it has the possibility of decentralised security, visibility and to gain from other innovation in this space.
That is however not all. Sidechains also have some specific use cases, unique to a certain blockchain. One example is the usage of sidechains in EOS. EOS is currently facing a RAM problem. RAM is too expensive and developers are complaining. Sidechains could compete with the EOS mainchain by having lower RAM prices, this would lead to competition, incentivizing both the EOS mainchain block producers and sidechain block producers (mainchain and sidechains of EOS are maintained by the same group of block producers) to keep the RAM price as low as possible. This also means there is more RAM available, so the RAM price will go down as a result.

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]
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!

Note: This is also a pioneering effort towards increased adoption of smart contracts because while the traditional contracts have been around for a long time, smart contracts are relatively new, and there are gaps in how they are structured. If the smart contracts have the necessary legal expressions then that could serve as a template to bridge this gap in future.


Using Rootstock as an example, in order to transfer assets from one chain to the other a user on the parent first has to send their coins to a special output address where they will consequently become locked and un-spendable. Once the transaction is completed, SPV then confirms it across the chains and after waiting out a contest period, which is just a secondary method to help prevent double spending, the equivalent amount will be credited and spendable on the Sidechain and vice versa.
Further, despite sidechains being independent of each other, they are responsible for their individual security and need the requisite mining power to remain secure. Bitcoin’s blockchain has sufficient PoW mining power to remain secure even from the most coordinated of attacks, but many more nascent sidechains lack the necessary network effects and mining power to guarantee security to users.

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.


The differences between these types of blockchains are based on the levels of trust existing among the members of the network and the resulting level of security. Indeed, the higher the level of trust between the members of the network, the lighter the consensus mechanism (which aims to add the blocks to the blockchain securely). As we will see, there is no trust between the members of a public blockchain since it is open to everyone and inversely the confidence is much stronger on the private blockchain since members are pre-selected. In networks based on a blockchain, the level of trust among the members therefore directly impacts the structure and mechanisms of the network.

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.

Private and Public Blockchain occurs when the financial enterprises start to explore the various blocks of the Blockchain technology. These two Blockchains are coming up with business oriented models as to obtain the difference between the two. The private blockchain generates at a lower cost and faster speed than the public blockchain. In the previous years, the blockchain has grown to become an interesting subject globally. It is becoming an integrated part in the financial sectors all over the digital world.

Zfort Group is a Full Service IT provider. We offer comprehensive and cost-effective web & mobile solutions: from consulting and website planning to application launch and support, serving businesses across the globe since 2000. Our highly motivated team includes 196 specialists in the following areas: PHP, ASP.NET, JavaScript, UI/UX Design, HTML/CSS, Quality Assurance, iOS and Android development.


“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. 


A sidechain is a separate blockchain that is attached to its parent blockchain using a two-way peg. The two-way peg enables interchangeability of assets at a predetermined rate between the parent blockchain and the sidechain. The original blockchain is usually referred to as the ‘main chain’ and all additional blockchains are referred to as ‘sidechains’. The blockchain platform Ardor refers to its sidechains as ‘childchains’.
The distributed Bitcoin mining network performs quadrillions of calculations every second that maintain the integrity of its blockchain. Other blockchains aren’t remotely as secure, but they innovate much faster. Sidechains, an innovation proposed and developed by the startup Blockstream, allow for the best of both worlds; the creation of new blockchains “pegged” to Bitcoin, so that value can be transferred between them, which can conceivably be automatically secured by Bitcoin miners via “merged mining.”
A Sidechain, in simplest terms, is just a separate blockchain but is attached to the parent through the use of a two-way peg which allows for assets to be interchangeable and moved across the chain at a fixed deterministic exchange rate. This two-way peg works by utilizing simple payment verification or SPV as it's otherwise known. To show and prove ownership of the assets on the parent chain.
The NPD report noted IBM is partnering with nine retailers and food companies (Walmart, Unilever, Nestle, Dole, Tyson Foods, Golden State Foods, McCormick & Co., McLane Co., and Driscoll’s) to revamp data management processes with blockchain. Walmart uses blockchain in China to source its pork all the way from the pig to the customer. This enables the retailers to provide transparency to all the players along the supply chain.
Smart contracts are immutable pieces of code and their outcomes are irreversible. Hence, formal verification of their code is very important before deploying them. It’s very hard to verify smart contracts in the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). A business can’t afford to deploy faulty but immutable smart contracts and suffer the consequences of their irreversible outcome. This article details the challanges: “Fundamental challenges with public blockchains”.

Por lo tanto, y gracias a estas sidechains, se podrían conectar a Bitcoin soluciones con objetivos concretos, complementándole y aprovechando sus ventajas pero con la suficiente independencia. Para ello se usan unas piezas llamadas ‘two-way peg’, que son las encargadas de sincronizar las transferncias (validan y inmovilizan las monedas) entre ambas cadenas: la sidechain cuenta con unas monedas ya minadas pero sin dueño a la espera que, tras el intercambio, queden bajo el control del usuario que llega a esta cadena.
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.
Over the last year the concept of “private blockchains” has become very popular in the broader blockchain technology discussion. Essentially, instead of having a fully public and uncontrolled network and state machine secured by cryptoeconomics (eg. proof of work, proof of stake), it is also possible to create a system where access permissions are more tightly controlled, with rights to modify or even read the blockchain state restricted to a few users, while still maintaining many kinds of partial guarantees of authenticity and decentralization that blockchains provide. Such systems have been a primary focus of interest from financial institutions, and have in part led to a backlash from those who see such developments as either compromising the whole point of decentralization or being a desperate act of dinosaurish middlemen trying to stay relevant (or simply committing the crime of using a blockchain other than Bitcoin). However, for those who are in this fight simply because they want to figure out how to best serve humanity, or even pursue the more modest goal of serving their customers, what are the practical differences between the two styles?
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.

Send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control… and out of the control of anybody else either. They’re completely immobilized and can only be unlocked if somebody can prove they’re no longer being used elsewhere (I’ll explain what I mean by this in a minute).   In other words, you’ve used the core bitcoin transaction rules I described above to lay down a specific condition that the future owner – whoever it ends up being – needs to fulfil in order to take control


@gendal, good question. Think of the identity hash as a bitcoin address, it is indeed public. So to assert anything with this identity you need to sign the object you are creating or changing with the identity’s private key. Specifically it is a private key that corresponds to a public key that you published in your identity’s object (json). The signature is not placed on the bitcoin transaction, as OP_RETURN has only 40 bytes. The signature is added to a [json] object that is modified with this identity. If you see any fault with this, please let me know.
Blockchain-based smart contracts are proposed contracts that could be partially or fully executed or enforced without human interaction.[55] One of the main objectives of a smart contract is automated escrow. An IMF staff discussion reported that smart contracts based on blockchain technology might reduce moral hazards and optimize the use of contracts in general. But "no viable smart contract systems have yet emerged." Due to the lack of widespread use their legal status is unclear.[56]
×