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:
"Proof of Work" used by Bitcoin is a competitive consensus algorithm. Each node races to solve a difficult puzzle first. Doing so earns the right to produce a block and you are rewarded in Bitcoin. The block is where the transaction (value of data) is written and confirmed. However, this race is a waste of time and money for those that don’t win. You get nothing unless you are the first to solve the puzzle. Since no one wants to lose, nodes started working together to solve the puzzle and share the reward based on your computational power (the hash rate).
The Loom Network recently released their SDK which supports what they call “Dappchains,” an Ethereum layer-2 sidechain solution with each sidechain comprised of their own DPoS consensus mechanism. This enables highly scalable dapps, specifically games built using their tools. Loom emphasizes the earlier comment about sidechains enabling innovation in scalability, rather than providing it directly. Loom’s sidechains have their own set of rules and are used to offload computation from the primary Ethereum chain. Their sidechains are application-specific, meaning that they enable highly scalable dapps through an efficient consensus mechanism and can periodically be settled on the main Ethereum chain depending on their security needs. You can find more information on their model here.
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.
“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.” 
Sidechains offer a way for new, more radical settings and technologies to be implemented without affecting the main chain. This ensures that the main chain is as secure as possible whilst providing the freedom to explore options which would never be considered for use on the main chain. Sidechains should be quite powerful as they provide cases like anonymity, transparency, confirmation times and turing complete options like rootstock all whilst utilizing bitcoins rather than relying on the hashing power (security) of some far less secure alt coin. That being said… there is quite some controvery regarding blockstream’s funding of most of the core development team and their inflexiblity regarding the max blocksize. This inflexibility has directly contributed to the success of ethereum and it remains to be seen whether the dream of bitcoin maximalism will survive long enough for sidechains with all of the promised functionality to be rolled out. I am skeptical.
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?

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 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...
This list is not exhaustive. There are plenty of public blockchains, and they are actively adopted by such industries as FinTech, gaming, logistics, and beyond. However, it not always makes sense to move certain processes and businesses to the public network as the latter are characterized by comparatively low speed of transactions execution and high costs. Indeed, every transaction requires a consensus of the entire network. Unfortunately, it takes time and resources.
Intellectsoft is a global full-cycle custom software development company that helps businesses to overcome the technological challenges of digital transformation through innovation and the use of emerging technologies, like blockchain, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, and cloud computing. Intellectsoft has been operating in the IT industry for over 10 years, delivering solutions to Fortune 500 companies and legen ... Read more
This list is not exhaustive. There are plenty of public blockchains, and they are actively adopted by such industries as FinTech, gaming, logistics, and beyond. However, it not always makes sense to move certain processes and businesses to the public network as the latter are characterized by comparatively low speed of transactions execution and high costs. Indeed, every transaction requires a consensus of the entire network. Unfortunately, it takes time and resources.
What if we could run heavy computations in a more centralized fashion, say on a single server, and then periodically integrate the results onto the main blockchain for posterity. We temporarily expose some vulnerability while the parallel server runs the heavy computation, but we get a massive benefit in that we don’t have to run the computation on chain, and simply need to store the results for future verification. This is the general premise behind Truebit. We won’t get into all the details of Truebit but there is a concept of challengers, who check to see the computations that were made have high fidelity.

The good thing about sidechains is that they are independent of their main chain. Sidechains take care of their own security. Problems occurring on the sidechain can, therefore, be controlled without affecting the main chain. Likewise, a security problem on the main chain does not affect the sidechain although the value of the peg is greatly reduced.
Quest Global Technologies is a leading software development organization that works on Blockchain, customized ERP, Mobile Apps, Salesforce and Web Development. Quest Global Technologies has been rated as TOP mobile application developers by Appfutura and is covered by Entrepreneur Magazine. Quest Global Technologies has the vision to make its clients successful by leveraging technology to increase sales, automation and reduce wastage. www.cryp ... Read more
Necessity is the answer to that question, well for the short term anyway. Currently public & private blockchains still have a lot of challenging technological problems that need to be sorted out, with privacy and scalability being foremost. Gallactic’s blockchain can certainly help with scalability due to its multi-chain architecture that allows for massive scaling to rival and in most cases surpass other blockchains in the market with transactions at 300 per second on mainchain with the ability to scale up to hundreds of thousands per second when the multi-chain model is configured for speed.
×