These kinds of blockchains are forks of the original implementations but deployed in a permissioned manner. Mainly hyped because the companies behind these chains want to onboard corporations in order to generate buzz around their their chain. It’s tolerable for proof of concepts or if they plan to move to public as soon as possible; otherwise they are just using the wrong set of tools for the job.

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?
This comparison might make you think that private blockchains are more reasonable to use as they are faster, cheaper, and protect the privacy of their members. However, in certain cases, transparency is more crucial than the speed of transaction approval. So, every company interested in moving their processes to a blockchain evaluates the needs and goals and only then selects a particular type of distributed ledger.
– 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.
3) the argument ‘let’s harden internal IT as if it worked outside the firewall’ makes a ton of sense to me. We need to construct a lot of hoops for hackers to jump through, as permitter defense is not holding up anymore. And we need to make our systems anti-fragile. The blockchain data structure is a good tool, other P2P tools can be used too. Also, the blockchain has initiated a renaissance of crypto tech, like multisig, payment channels., HD wallets, hot-cold storage, and other innovations in key management.
In the context of the two-way peg, the DMMS is represented by the Simplified Payment Verification Proof (SPV Proof), which is a DMMS confirming that a specific action on a PoW blockchain occurred. The SPV Proof functions as the proof of possession in the initial parent chain for its secure transfer to a sidechain. Symmetric two-way pegs are the primary type of two-way peg so we will only be referring specifically to the symmetric (compared to asymmetric) peg in this piece.
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.
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 public blockchain is open to anyone who wants to deploy smart contracts and have their executions performed by public mining nodes. Bitcoin is one of the largest public blockchain networks today. As such, there is limited privacy in the public blockchain. Mining nodes in the public blockchain requires a substantial amount of computational power to maintain the distributed ledger at a large scale. In the Ethereum public blockchain, smart contract codes can be viewed openly.
A partir de este momento, se podrán intercambiar y mover estas monedas para hacer uso del potencial de esa sidechain siguiendo las directrices y protocolo que ésta tenga estipulado. Por ejemplo, quizá la velocidad de creación de los bloques es más rápida en esta o quizá los scripts de transacción en esa cadena son turing completos (disponen de un poder de cómputo equivalente a la máquina universal de Turing).
These in-channel payments would be instant, unlike current Bitcoin payments, which require an hour to be fully verified on the blockchain. What’s more, payments would be routable across multi-hop paths, like packets across the Internet — so instead of having to create a channel to every new counterparty, you could maintain a few channels to a small number of well-connected secure intermediaries and send/receive money through them.
Let us call the current Bitcoin System Bitcoin 1.0 and the sidechain Bitcoin 2.0 So one would take one unit of Bitcoin 1.0 and send it to an unspendable address (e.g. 1111111111111111111114bRaS3) they’d also submit cryptographic proof of the transaction signed by the same private key that sent the transaction as a transaction into Bitcoin 2.0. The protocol of Bitcoin 2.0 would entitle the user to receive one unit of Bitcoin 2.0  This is called “One-way Pegging” as the value of one Bitcoin 2.0 is equal to one Bitcoin 1.0.  This system is only one way and creates a wormhole by which Bitcoin 1.0 disappears as there is no way of getting it back.
To most people, Bitcoin itself is already deeply esoteric (and many still find it risible.) But to cryptocurrency aficionados, tired old garden-variety Bitcoin is so five minutes ago. Explaining today’s new cryptocurrency hotness to a general audience is an interesting challenge–I have an engineering degree from a top-tier school and I write software for a living, and I still find much of this material pretty impenetrable on first acquaintance–but here goes:
Are there any legitimate uses for it? Possibly, if you have an institution that can’t establish legal relationship between them. I am not sure where can we find this use case in the wild; most corporations and institutions usually thrive on the legal documents they have signed in order to keep each other from lying/hiding/deleting/changing data. Since each institution can keep the local copy of all transactions within their own database, the question becomes a matter of dispute resolution, as opposed to a lack of trust.

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.
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.
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 type of permissioned blockchain model offers the ability to leverage more than 30 years of technical literature to realize significant benefits. Digital identity in particular, is fundamental for most industry use cases, be it handling supply chain challenges, disrupting the financial industry, or facilitating security-rich patient/provider data exchanges in healthcare. Only the entities participating in a particular transaction will have knowledge and access to it — other entities will have no access to it. Permissioned blockchains also permit a couple of orders of magnitude greater scalability in terms of transactional throughput.