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.)
The creation of sidechains have been a direct result of scalability issues associated with the main blockchain for projects such as Ethereum. Making sidechains increasingly popular way to speed up transactions. Lisk was the first decentralized application (dapp) to implement sidechains. With Lisk, each dapp created exists on its own sidechain without interfering with the mainchain.
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).
Every node in a decentralized system has a copy of the blockchain. Data quality is maintained by massive database replication[8] and computational trust. No centralized "official" copy exists and no user is "trusted" more than any other.[4] Transactions are broadcast to the network using software. Messages are delivered on a best-effort basis. Mining nodes validate transactions,[22] add them to the block they are building, and then broadcast the completed block to other nodes.[24]:ch. 08 Blockchains use various time-stamping schemes, such as proof-of-work, to serialize changes.[34] Alternative consensus methods include proof-of-stake.[22] Growth of a decentralized blockchain is accompanied by the risk of centralization because the computer resources required to process larger amounts of data become more expensive.[35]
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.
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.

The block time is the average time it takes for the network to generate one extra block in the blockchain.[27] Some blockchains create a new block as frequently as every five seconds.[28] By the time of block completion, the included data becomes verifiable. In cryptocurrency, this is practically when the transaction takes place, so a shorter block time means faster transactions. The block time for Ethereum is set to between 14 and 15 seconds, while for bitcoin it is 10 minutes.[29]

We use node 2 to receive a payment of 200 via the smart contract function, receivePayment(). Note that the receivePayment() function can accept a second parameter for the account address that is used to create this transaction. (Note that you can also set web3.eth.defaultAccount = "<…account address…>", after which you can just call receivePayment(200) with one parameter.)

In October 2014, the MIT Bitcoin Club, with funding from MIT alumni, provided undergraduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology access to $100 of bitcoin. The adoption rates, as studied by Catalini and Tucker (2016), revealed that when people who typically adopt technologies early are given delayed access, they tend to reject the technology.[85]
The top 10 Ethereum decentralized apps (DApps) have daily active user counts in the thousands. Compare this with a centralized platform like Facebook, which has over a billion daily users, and you can see just how small scale blockchain use still remains. For a detailed comparison, read “State of the DApps: 5 Observations From Usage Data (April 2018)”.
By design, a blockchain is resistant to modification of the data. It is "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way".[7] For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus of the network majority. Although blockchain records are not unalterable, blockchains may be considered secure by design and exemplify a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been claimed with a blockchain.[8]

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.


By design, a blockchain is resistant to modification of the data. It is "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way".[7] For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus of the network majority. Although blockchain records are not unalterable, blockchains may be considered secure by design and exemplify a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been claimed with a blockchain.[8]
@Tradle. Thanks for elaborating. I’m also thinking about these things – and hear lots of other people talk about them – but I *really* struggle with the concept. It all comes down to the table I drew in this post: https://gendal.me/2014/12/19/a-simple-model-to-make-sense-of-the-proliferation-of-distributed-ledger-smart-contract-and-cryptocurrency-projects/
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.

Counterfeiting items is a $1.2 trillion global problem, according to Research and Markets 2018 Global Brand Counterfeiting Report. The rise of online commerce and third-party marketplace sellers have made the crime more prevalent in recent years. Blockchain technology can help consumers verify what they ordered online and what they receive in the mail is what they intended to purchase.
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:
An important distinction to be made about sidechains that needs to be understood is that sidechains themselves help to fuel innovation through experimentation. Rather than providing scalability directly, they allow for trivial experimentation on sidechains with various scalability mechanisms. Using sidechains, one can avoid the problems of initial distribution, market volatility, and barriers to entry when experimenting with altcoins due to the inherent derivation of their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. That being said, each sidechain is independent and flexible to tool around with various features.
A consortium blockchain is part public, part private. This split works at the level of the consensus process: on a consortium chain, a pre-selected group of nodes control the consensus process, but other nodes may be allowed to participate in creating new transactions and/or reviewing it. The specific configuration of each consortium chain (i.e., which nodes have the power to authorize transactions via the consensus process, which can review the history of the chain, which can create new transactions, and more) is the decision of each individual consortium.
“Blockchain could significantly reduce time delays and human mistakes, and monitor cost, labor, waste and emissions at every point in the supply chain. In the food sector, a manufacturer could automatically identify contaminated products in a matter of seconds and wouldn’t need to pull an entire product line from store shelves in the case of contamination.”

@tetsu – not sure what you mean. My reading of the sidechains paper is that the worst case scenario is that an attacker manages to “reanimate” Bitcoins on the main blockchain that had been sent to the sidechain… but that would be the attacker stealing the coins from the rightful owner on the sidechain. From Bitcoin’s perspective, the coins were always going to be reanimated…. so the risk is entirely borne by the holder(s) on the sidechain. Am I missing something?


Security issues. Like the blockchain, the sidechain needs the work of miners to stay safe from attacks. Without sufficient power, the sidechain is vulnerable for assault. If hacked, only the sidechain will be damaged, while the main chain remains untouched and ready to continue work. If the main chain comes under the attack, the sidechain still operates, but without the value of the peg.
It doesn’t matter if you’re moving $1bn or 0.01c across the Bitcoin network, you get the same security guarantees.   And you pay for this in fees and time.   What if you were prepared to trade safety for speed?   Today, your only real option is to send the coins to a centralized wallet provider, whom you must trust not to lose or steal your coins. You can then do all the transactions you like on their books, with their other customers and you never need touch the Bitcoin blockchain. But now you lose all the benefits of a decentralized value-transfer network.
Jump up ^ Kopfstein, Janus (12 December 2013). "The Mission to Decentralize the Internet". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 31 December 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2014. The network's 'nodes'—users running the bitcoin software on their computers—collectively check the integrity of other nodes to ensure that no one spends the same coins twice. All transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the 'block chain.'
Blockstream has also released an “Alpha” sidechain with all of those features up and running except the last, coupled to the Bitcoin testnet. (Used for testing Bitcoin software without putting real value at risk.) In the absence of the Bitcoin protocol change that will cryptographically secure the programmatic transfer of value between Bitcoin and sidechains, they’re cooperating with several external organizations to perform and validate those transfers. If and when that protocol change happens, though, pegged sidechains will be as permissionless, and as decentralized, as Bitcoin itself.

Frankly, secure implementation of Bitcoin is already a pain in the ass .. adding more complexity just seems like the wrong move at this point. It’s already trying to be a currency, a networking protocol and a client in the same codebase. Adding turing complete (or not) scripts with arbitrary outcomes, multiple versions of the official client cooperating, multiple clients, and now multiple blockchains is basically the nail in the coffin in terms of widespread implementation.

“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. 
×