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.
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.
Forbes reports that blockchain and biometric eyeball scanning technologies underpin the systems that support food distribution in the Syrian refugee crisis. While there are many further uses of blockchain, at the core of its business functionality is the creation of transparent, stacking “ledgers” of information. This is where private blockchain can prove extremely useful.
This is justified by observing that, in our pre-sidechain world, miners always want things to be correct. In theory, the incentives of miners and investors are very strongly aligned: both are compensated most when the exchange rate is highest. And, in practice, we do not see large reorganizations (where miners can “steal”, by first depositing BTC to major exchanges, then selling that BTC for fiat (which they withdraw), and finally rewriting the last 3 or 4 days of chain history, to un-confirm the original deposits). These reorgs would devastate the exchange rate, as they would cast doubt on the entire Bitcoin experiment. The thesis of Drivechain is that sidechain-theft would also devastate the exchange rate, as it would cast doubt on the entire sidechain experiment (which would itself cast doubt on the Bitcoin experiment, given the anti-competitive power of sidechains).
Another technology that could see more widespread use in the coming years is side chains. A side chain is defined for one specific use case. There can be multiple side chains where different tasks are distributed accordingly for improving the efficiency of processing. Maybe one application needs to optimize for high speeds and another needs to optimize for large computations. In any case, side chains can be used to handle commercial blockchain usage. CryptoKitties would have greatly benefitted from an optimized high-speed side chain. At one point, they jammed up the Ethereum blockchain with 25% of all transactions coming from their application.
“We believe that public blockchains with censorship resistance have the potential to disrupt society, when private blockchains are merely a cost-efficiency tool for banking back offices. One can measure its potential in trillions of dollars, the other in billions. But as they are totally orthogonal, both can coexist in the same time, and therefore there is no need to oppose them as we can often see it.”
The two-way peg is the mechanism for transferring assets between sidechains and is set at a fixed or predefined rate. Bitcoin’s Dynamic Membership Multi-Party Signature (DMMS) plays a vital role in the functionality of the two-way peg. The DMMS is one of Bitcoin’s lesser known but incredibly important components. It is a group digital signature — composed of the block headers in Bitcoin — that has no fixed size due to the computationally powered PoW nature of its blockchain. The Pegged Sidechain paper further describes it as:
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.
Jump up ^ Redrup, Yolanda (29 June 2016). "ANZ backs private blockchain, but won't go public". Australia Financial Review. Archived from the original on 3 July 2016. Retrieved 7 July 2016. Blockchain networks can be either public or private. Public blockchains have many users and there are no controls over who can read, upload or delete the data and there are an unknown number of pseudonymous participants. In comparison, private blockchains also have multiple data sets, but there are controls in place over who can edit data and there are a known number of participants.
Write permissions are kept centralized to one organization. Read permissions may be public or restricted to an arbitrary extent. Example applications include database management, auditing, etc. which are internal to a single company, and so public readability may in many cases not be necessary at all. In other cases public audit ability is desired. Private blockchains are a way of taking advantage of blockchain technology by setting up groups and participants who can verify transactions internally. This puts you at the risk of security breaches just like in a centralized system, as opposed to public blockchain secured by game theoretic incentive mechanisms. However, private blockchains have their use case, especially when it comes to scalability and state compliance of data privacy rules and other regulatory issues. They have certain security advantages, and other security disadvantages (as stated before).
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.
Transparency does not, however, mean that public blockchains are completely unhackable. Any time data enters a digital network, it is subject to security breaches and unethical uses. Although public blockchains looks to be highly secure right now, there are always going to be bad actors interested in exploiting weaknesses in the system. This is often through hacking methods that are difficult to predict and account for — so claims of one-hundred-percent security in any technology should always be read with a critical eye
Put simply, sidechaining is any mechanism that allows tokens from one blockchain to be securely used within a completely separate blockchain but still moved back to the original chain if necessary. By convention the original chain is normally referred to as the "main chain", while any additional blockchains which allow users to transact within them in the tokens of the main chain are referred to as "sidechains". For example, a private Ethereum-based network that had a linkage allowing ether to be securely moved from the public Ethereum main chain onto it and back would be considered to be a sidechain of the public network.
A diferencia con la, hasta ahora, plataforma estrella de smart contracts Ethereum, otra de las diferencias más importantes de Lisk es que, en Lisk, cada aplicación corre sobre su propia sidechain y no sobre una única cadena, cómo es el caso de Ethereum. Por lo tanto, un entorno propio e independiente que podrá exprimir cada desarrollador para cada DAPP desarrollada con un backend en JS/NodeJS y un frontend HTML/CSS/JS.
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.
Nikolai Hampton pointed out in Computerworld that "There is also no need for a '51 percent' attack on a private blockchain, as the private blockchain (most likely) already controls 100 percent of all block creation resources. If you could attack or damage the blockchain creation tools on a private corporate server, you could effectively control 100 percent of their network and alter transactions however you wished." This has a set of particularly profound adverse implications during a financial crisis or debt crisis like the financial crisis of 2007–08, where politically powerful actors may make decisions that favor some groups at the expense of others, and "the bitcoin blockchain is protected by the massive group mining effort. It's unlikely that any private blockchain will try to protect records using gigawatts of computing power—it's time consuming and expensive." He also said, "Within a private blockchain there is also no 'race'; there's no incentive to use more power or discover blocks faster than competitors. This means that many in-house blockchain solutions will be nothing more than cumbersome databases."
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.
Jump up ^ Iansiti, Marco; Lakhani, Karim R. (January 2017). "The Truth About Blockchain". Harvard Business Review. Harvard University. Archived from the original on 18 January 2017. Retrieved 17 January 2017. The technology at the heart of bitcoin and other virtual currencies, blockchain is an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way.
Thus Tradle set out to build a meta-protocol that saves the data in the overlay network, and only puts minimal referencing data on the blockchain. There is a general grumpy consensus among bitcoin core devs and mining pool operators on allowing one small data chunk, a hash, per transaction. Many devs say it is not possible to secure this second overlay network. I agree, unless we use the blockchain to help with the task. We have a partial solution working, and are preparing a new design to improve it (partial, as it can not yet handle all known attacks). We are actively sharing the designs at various meetups (and on the github) and are inviting devs to find attack vectors and propose solutions. Tradle’s protocol not only relieves the pressure on bitcoin’s blockchain but is also able to handle larger transaction sizes than Counterparty and Mastercoin, so it can be used for complex identity, supply chain management and many other applications. It is also capable of handling attachment files, needed in the healthcare and financial industries.
Blockchain-based smart contracts are proposed contracts that could be partially or fully executed or enforced without human interaction. 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.