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.
Sidechain is a blockchain that runs parallel to the main blockchain. It extends the functionality of interplorable blockchain networks. Interpolable blockchain networks signifies the ability to share data between different computer systems on different machines. It means that data can be sent and received between interconnected networks eliminating the possibility of negative impact to the networks. Sidechain enables this to be done in a decentralised manner to transfer and synchronise tokens between two chains.

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
Consagous Technologies is a prominent name in the blockchain industry for developing secured and robust blockchain solutions for its clients. A highly experienced and technology-driven team at Consagous is well-versed in working on all Blockchain platforms like Hyperledger, Big chain DB, Ethereum and IPFS. Consagous rich experience over wide range of industries coupled with strong technical knowledge of the programmers helps it deliver reliable b ... Read more
NPD said the next step for retailers is to develop their own cryptocurrency to prevent customers from having to use credit cards when shopping online. NPD said the practice makes sense for the retailer, because if the customer could send the payment transfer via blockchain, it would avoid third-party clearing house fees retailers pay for processing card payments.

@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.
Bitcoin’s block interval is ten minutes so it takes about five ten minutes on average for a new transaction to find its way into a block, even if it pays a high fee. This is too slow for some people so they have experimented with alternative cryptocurrencies, based on the Bitcoin code-base, which employ quicker block intervals   [UPDATED 2014-10-27 to correct my embarrassing misunderstanding of mathematics…]
Consortium blockchains: a consortium blockchain is a blockchain where the consensus process is controlled by a pre-selected set of nodes; for example, one might imagine a consortium of 15 financial institutions, each of which operates a node and of which 10 must sign every block in order for the block to be valid. The right to read the blockchain may be public, or restricted to the participants, and there are also hybrid routes such as the root hashes of the blocks being public together with an API that allows members of the public to make a limited number of queries and get back cryptographic proofs of some parts of the blockchain state. These blockchains may be considered "partially decentralized".
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.
@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.
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.
Things get a bit more interesting when you replace the single custodian with a federation of notaries by way of a multisignature address. In this model, a federation of entities must sign-off on movements to and from the sidechain, so more parties must be compromised for a failure situation to unfold where the bitcoins frozen on the main chain are stolen.
Sidechains with specific purposes could be formed with specific features while still enjoying the widespread adoption and value that Bitcoin holds.  Most importantly it can add these features without consensus from the Bitcoin community. Sidechains have the potential to replace many Cryptocurrencies as it allows features that were previously unique to these currencies to be available on Bitcoin. It also allows developers to experiment with sidechains and scope its full potential while still keeping coins linked to Bitcoin.
Eris Industries, aims to be the provider of shared software database using blockchain technology. Blockstack, aims to provide financial institutions back office operations, including clearing & settlement on a private blockchain. Multichain, provider an open source distributed database for financial transactions. Chain Inc., a provider of blockchain API's. Chain partnered with Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., to provide a platform that enables trading private company shares with the blockchain.
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.
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)”.
Perhaps blocks are created faster on that sidechain. Perhaps transaction scripts are “turing complete”. Perhaps you have to pay fees to incent those securing that sidechain. Who knows. The rules can be whatever those running that sidechain want them to be. The only rule that matters is that the sidechain agrees to follow the convention that if you can prove you put some Bitcoins out of reach on the Bitcoin network, the same number will pop into existence on the sidechain.
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.

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.


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?
Always there is a balance in nature, even in blockchains. If you want to have extra features, you need to make a sacrifice from your current features. For example to have high speed and volume; you need to give some from your security & immutability by doing consensus with smaller groups or you need to use different methods in consensus like POS / PBFT. (Proof of Stake / Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance)
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.
Bitcoin se acerca a los 10,000 millones de capitalización, con una infraestructura y usuarios que requieren que todas las ideas e innovación que se desarrolla a su alrededor cumpla con un nivel de seguridad y testeo tan elevados como el propio Bitcoin. Es por esto que, al menos hasta no ser algo totalmente definnido y fiable en la blockchain test de Bitcoin, no se podrá empezar a presionar para una posible implementación en la blockchain live.

Decentralization and distribution are seen by many to be a major benefit of public blockchains, but not everybody shares this ethos. But this is not the only benefit of public blockchains, of course. Perhaps most importantly, their transparency makes them very secure: because they can be audited by anybody, it is easy to detect fraud on the chain. Security-via-openness is a principle well known in the open source world, and this strategy is also popular among some in the digital currency community. For example, all of the tools and content produced by the Ethereum team is open source. This helps to make Ethereum widely accessible and more secure.


Perhaps blocks are created faster on that sidechain. Perhaps transaction scripts are “turing complete”. Perhaps you have to pay fees to incent those securing that sidechain. Who knows. The rules can be whatever those running that sidechain want them to be. The only rule that matters is that the sidechain agrees to follow the convention that if you can prove you put some Bitcoins out of reach on the Bitcoin network, the same number will pop into existence on the sidechain.
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.

A company called Blockstream has been focusing on these developments and has announced the release of Sidechain Elements, which is an open-sourced framework for sidechain development. It includes a functioning code and a testing environment for working with sidechains with several components: the core network software to build an initial testing sidechain, eight new features not currently supported by bitcoin, a basic wallet and the code for moving coins between blockchains.
This type of blockchains can be considered a middle-ground for companies that are interested in the blockchain technology in general but are not comfortable with a level of control offered by public networks. Typically, they seek to incorporate blockchain into their accounting and record-keeping procedures without sacrificing autonomy and running the risk of exposing sensitive data to the public internet.
@gendal I am discussing private chains with prospects, so my interest is not superficial and theoretical. I see the benefits for the organization in using the private chain as another form of internal database, with better security properties. It can also be used where a service bus product would be today, to facilitate integration, conformance, monitoring, audit. Private chain can also, via a two way peg, be connected to the main chain, achieving a form of public/private network divide that routers created for us in the early stages of the Internet development. Anything else on the benefits side that I missed?
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.
Federated Blockchains operate under the leadership of a group. As opposed to public Blockchains, they don’t allow any person with access to the Internet to participate in the process of verifying transactions. Federated Blockchains are faster (higher scalability) and provide more transaction privacy. Consortium blockchains are mostly used in the banking sector. The consensus process is controlled by a pre-selected set of nodes; for example, one might imagine a consortium of 15 financial institutions, each of which operates a node and of which 10 must sign every block in order for the block to be valid. The right to read the blockchain may be public, or restricted to the participants.
Terasol's mission is to create apps that would help people learn and grow with tech. Every member of Terasol shares the same dream of working towards building apps that would not only create history but also give people the opportunity of experiencing tech they did not know could become essential part of their lives. A lot has changed since we developed our first app; we have grown with each project and refined our skills to serve nothin ... Read more

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.


Many people believe this is the future of the blockchain. It maintains network security and allows for scalability. The biggest criticism is that it heavily favors those with more funds as smaller holders have no chance of becoming witnesses. But the reality is, smaller players have no hope of participating in Proof of Work either, as mining from your own laptop at home is no longer a reality. Smaller players get outcompeted by bigger players who have massive mining rigs. STEEM and EOS are examples of DPOS blockchains. Even Ethereum is moving to POS with its Casper project.

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.
×