My take is that the Bitcoin architecture is a solution to the problem of how to maintain consensus about a ledger when the participants are unknown and many of them are adversarial (I know this is loose language… computer scientists working in the consensus space are more precise but I think this captures the essence…. i.e. we’re explicitly in a world where there is no “leader” and no identities for those providing the consensus services).
Given all of this, it may seem like private blockchains are unquestionably a better choice for institutions. However, even in an institutional context, public blockchains still have a lot of value, and in fact this value lies to a substantial degree in the philosophical virtues that advocates of public blockchains have been promoting all along, among the chief of which are freedom, neutrality and openness. The advantages of public blockchains generally fall into two major categories:
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.

A federation is a group of servers that act as an in-between point between the main chain and a sidechain. The Federation decides when the user’s coins are locked as well as when they are released. The developers of the sidechains can choose the members of the federation. The downside to using federations is that they add another layer between the sidechains and the parent chain.
Walmart recently filed patents that could allow the retailer to store vendor and consumer e-commerce payment data using blockchain technology to improve security. This application would encrypt payment information in digital shopping systems and create a network able to automatically conduct transactions on behalf of a customer. The payments would be received by one vendor or more, depending on the services and who provided 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.
By definition, blockchain is a ledger of all transactions that have been executed and could be seen as a write-only platform, wherein transactions once executed cannot be modified later. This platform has been further divided into Public and Private blockchain. Is there a third one? a hybrid mode such as a ‘Consortium blockchain’ as represented by Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, a decentralized web 3.0 publishing platform.
There has been tremendous interest in blockchain, the technology on which Bitcoin functions. Nakamoto developed the blockchain as an acceptable solution to the game theory puzzle – Byzantine General’s Problem. This lead to a number of firms adopting the technology in different ways to solve real world issues, wherever there was an element of trust involved. Majority of them could be relating to the ability to provide proof of ownership – for documents, software modules/licenses, voting etc.

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.'


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).
Further, despite sidechains being independent of each other, they are responsible for their individual security and need the requisite mining power to remain secure. Bitcoin’s blockchain has sufficient PoW mining power to remain secure even from the most coordinated of attacks, but many more nascent sidechains lack the necessary network effects and mining power to guarantee security to users.

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.
If one group of nodes continues to use the old software while the other nodes use the new software, a split can occur. For example, Ethereum has hard-forked to "make whole" the investors in The DAO, which had been hacked by exploiting a vulnerability in its code.[31] In this case, the fork resulted in a split creating Ethereum and Ethereum Classic chains. In 2014 the Nxt community was asked to consider a hard fork that would have led to a rollback of the blockchain records to mitigate the effects of a theft of 50 million NXT from a major cryptocurrency exchange. The hard fork proposal was rejected, and some of the funds were recovered after negotiations and ransom payment.[32]
Private institutions like banks realized that they could use the core idea of blockchain as a distributed ledger technology (DLT), and create a permissioned blockchain (private or federated), where the validator is a member of a consortium or separate legal entities of the same organization. The term blockchain in the context of permissioned private ledger is highly controversial and disputed. This is why the term distributed ledger technologies emerged as a more general term.
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.
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).
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.
Sidechains allow cryptocurrencies to interact with one another. They add flexibility and allow developers to experiment with Beta releases of Altcoins or software updates before pushing them on to the main chain. Traditional banking functions like issuing and tracking ownership of shares can be tested on sidechains before moving them onto main chains. If the security mechanisms for sidechains can be bolstered, sidechain technology holds promise for massive blockchain scalability.
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.
A federation is a group of servers that act as an in-between point between the main chain and a sidechain. The Federation decides when the user’s coins are locked as well as when they are released. The developers of the sidechains can choose the members of the federation. The downside to using federations is that they add another layer between the sidechains and the parent chain.
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.

The original Litecoin we started out with are now Rootstock Litecoin, which I can use for creating smart contracts and as previously mentioned Sidechains can exist for all types of digital assets with propositions of not only smart contracts but the ability to provide more freedom for experimentation with Beta releases of core software and Altcoins, as well as the taking over of traditional banking instruments such as the issuing and tracking of shares, bonds and other assets.

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.
The consortium or company running a private blockchain can easily, if desired, change the rules of a blockchain, revert transactions, modify balances, etc. In some cases, eg. national land registries, this functionality is necessary; there is no way a system would be allowed to exist where Dread Pirate Roberts can have legal ownership rights over a plainly visible piece of land, and so an attempt to create a government-uncontrollable land registry would in practice quickly devolve into one that is not recognized by the government itself. Of course, one can argue that one can do this on a public blockchain by giving the government a backdoor key to a contract; the counter-argument to that is that such an approach is essentially a Rube Goldbergian alternative to the more efficient route of having a private blockchain, although there is in turn a partial counter-argument to that that I will describe later.
Sometimes separate blocks can be produced concurrently, creating a temporary fork. In addition to a secure hash-based history, any blockchain has a specified algorithm for scoring different versions of the history so that one with a higher value can be selected over others. Blocks not selected for inclusion in the chain are called orphan blocks.[22] Peers supporting the database have different versions of the history from time to time. They keep only the highest-scoring version of the database known to them. Whenever a peer receives a higher-scoring version (usually the old version with a single new block added) they extend or overwrite their own database and retransmit the improvement to their peers. There is never an absolute guarantee that any particular entry will remain in the best version of the history forever. Because blockchains are typically built to add the score of new blocks onto old blocks and because there are incentives to work only on extending with new blocks rather than overwriting old blocks, the probability of an entry becoming superseded goes down exponentially[23] as more blocks are built on top of it, eventually becoming very low.[1][24]:ch. 08[25] For example, in a blockchain using the proof-of-work system, the chain with the most cumulative proof-of-work is always considered the valid one by the network. There are a number of methods that can be used to demonstrate a sufficient level of computation. Within a blockchain the computation is carried out redundantly rather than in the traditional segregated and parallel manner.[26]
A private blockchain network requires an invitation and must be validated by either the network starter or by a set of rules put in place by the network starter. Businesses who set up a private blockchain, will generally set up a permissioned network. This places restrictions on who is allowed to participate in the network, and only in certain transactions. Participants need to obtain an invitation or permission to join. The access control mechanism could vary: existing participants could decide future entrants; a regulatory authority could issue licenses for participation; or a consortium could make the decisions instead. Once an entity has joined the network, it will play a role in maintaining the blockchain in a decentralized manner.
×