Sub chains bitcoin miner
The key is that you can build these experiments and products and services without also needing to create a new currency or fall back into the old centralised style. Now there are some serious issues with the scheme. Peter Todd has raised doubts about how secure it might be and it might require a one-off change to Bitcoin.
I thought it was a genius idea at the time and it will allow experimenting. THis concept opens up doors to Central banks taking part in the blockchain under a defined set of rules! That might be fun to see unfold. For now we wait and see. Hi Richard- How does this concept differ from http: Reblogged this on Global-hardware. Reblogged this on Maverisk and commented: In one sense, a dilution. In another, a move to widespread adoption and acceptance. From which, probably, some unforeseeable, maybe even weird, whole new societal developments may spring.
Frankly, secure implementation of Bitcoin is already a pain in the ass.. 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. However, I am wondering about one thing. The expected time before the next block is always 10 minutes.
Richard- Sidechains appear to be an awkward implementation of Ripple gateways. My view is that counterparties e. Counterparty risk remains in both versions, and Ripple is designed to automatically mitigate the degree of risk. That said — I think some camps would strongly disagree — counterparty risk seems like a reasonable price to pay for systemic scalability and stability, especially when the risk can be mitigated with rules and governance that institutions like SWIFT and the Bank of England provide today.
Despite best technical efforts, human problems remain within the realm of probability. The effects of a public herd mentality at the time of the [insert catastrophe here] are depicted, all too recognizably, as unstoppable. Reblogged this on Insufficiently Edited Ty Danco. However, the technical breakthrough that is the blockchain really is a historical break. Sticking only to the historical, tried-and-true surface-crawling after the invention of heavier-than-air man-made flying in the early s would be missing the fundamentally new possibility uncovered: I need to read more about Ripple.
Some concerns with the article: There is something similar going on here with dollars. The fact that printed dollars have serial numbers tends to confuse this notion. I have not had a chance to read the original article on side chains, but I am sure they deal with my next problem quite adequately. However it is not addressed in the above article. The primary problem that must be addressed with the notion of side chains, as I see it, would be the issue of the mining required to authenticate transactions and enter them into the block chain.
But for any user, they would need to be both considered and understood. The validation process requires mining in much the same sense as mining new coin. None of this is mentioned or discussed in the article. As a result, the verification of side chain transactions outside the block chain introduces whole new layers of risk into the Bitcoin model, and new layers of unknowns.
My chief concern is not with the concept of side chains per se yet. I have still much to learn about how they are being considered. I am only concerned with the way the concept is being presented here. However, I am sure that much of this was due to space restrictions as much as anything. The concept of side chains is an intriguing one. It is also clearly attempting to address a major problem with the whole Bitcoin scheme- namely the verification latency it introduces for transactions.
This is only one of the hurdles facing Bitcoins acceptance into the world of commerce, but it is a considerable one. But how that happens is a matter for the sidechain. Gendal, how do you suppose private chains will be secured? For example, the CEO may decide to adjust history and there is not much stopping him, since he controls all the mining.
One approach is the periodic checkpoints sent to the blockchain. I think sidechains become a huge security hole that might corpse whole Bitcoin eco-system. But the situation is no different than a firm today that offers bitcoin safekeeping services, right?
Am I missing something? 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.
Anything else on the benefits side that I missed? Buy what is lost with private chains is non-repudiation of transactions, as PoW can now be manipulated, by the company itself, hackers and the governments. Checkpointing with the main chains is a good start, but is not enough. I am interested in discussing possible solutions to the problem. It all comes down to the table I drew in this post: 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….
Security is so bad, employees are so untrustworthy, etc. But they are both problematic. Any thoughts on how one might do this? As blockchain ecosystem grows all kinds of data transformation tools will appear e. Inside blockchain could be tuned to be less PoW intensive and to cut blocks faster. 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.
Store only what is necessary for the immediate access in a decrypted form on encrypted drives in a database sort of like cold and hot wallets. When homomorphic encryption matures even DB records could be encrypted. Each network participant will incorporate either a full node or an SPV client instead of trusting the access token.
I would submit a 5 to your list, economic software design, inspired by the blockchain: These clear boundaries started to erode with the extranets in the 90s, then with the multi-tenant cloud platforms, and lately with the smartphones and the IoT.
As we move forward we will see value chains where participants have multiple roles and affiliations. We will be designing token based systems that produce gains for any participants, internal or external. My team is working on the following preliminary identity design right now: There is no uniqueness of names in real life either.
Instead the identity is just a hash of a [json] object that contains a public key. Identity object can not be modified directly, but a new version of it can be created, pointing to a previous version. The owner of the identity object can optionally connect it with the real life credentials, e. This allows a spectrum of identities from fully anonymous to fully disclosed and verified.
This also allows a person to have multiple identities, for work, for social, for gaming, for interest-specific forums. What are you storing? The hash of the JSON object? The JSON object itself? Here is the rationale:. Mastercoin and Counterparty are embedded consensus protocols or meta-protocols that use the blockchain to store their transactional data.
Bitcoin devs, except Peter Todd who was hired by both teams to help them find a proper solution, are very unhappy, to say mildly, about storing the data on the blockchain. Heated discussions on this topic go on for hundreds of pages on bitcointalk and Mastercoin github issue. Mining pools like Eligius started censoring Mastercoin transactions not sure if they are continuing with this practice right now, but the operators of this pool are adamant that data do not belong to the blockchain.
I think this conservative position without offering an alternative solution, will result in bitcoin ceding the market to Ethereum, much like Apple created an entrance to a much inferior at the time Android by signing an iPhone exclusivity deal with some carriers. I talked yesterday with Adam Krellenstein of the Counterparty and censorship was threatened, but he said did not yet happen. Yet, as I gathered, it is a remaining concern that can undermine their whole business.
Thus Tradle set out to build a meta-protocol that saves the data in the overlay network, and only puts minimal referencing data on the blockchain. There is a general grumpy consensus among bitcoin core devs and mining pool operators on allowing one small data chunk, a hash, per transaction.
Many devs say it is not possible to secure this second overlay network. I agree, unless we use the blockchain to help with the task. Confirmation means that a transaction has been processed by the network and is highly unlikely to be reversed. Transactions receive a confirmation when they are included in a block and for each subsequent block. Each confirmation exponentially decreases the risk of a reversed transaction. Cryptography is the branch of mathematics that lets us create mathematical proofs that provide high levels of security.
Online commerce and banking already uses cryptography. In the case of Bitcoin, cryptography is used to make it impossible for anybody to spend funds from another user's wallet or to corrupt the block chain.
It can also be used to encrypt a wallet, so that it cannot be used without a password. If a malicious user tries to spend their bitcoins to two different recipients at the same time , this is double spending. Bitcoin mining and the block chain are there to create a consensus on the network about which of the two transactions will confirm and be considered valid.
The hash rate is the measuring unit of the processing power of the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin network must make intensive mathematical operations for security purposes.
Bitcoin mining is the process of making computer hardware do mathematical calculations for the Bitcoin network to confirm transactions and increase security. As a reward for their services, Bitcoin miners can collect transaction fees for the transactions they confirm, along with newly created bitcoins. Mining is a specialized and competitive market where the rewards are divided up according to how much calculation is done.
Not all Bitcoin users do Bitcoin mining, and it is not an easy way to make money. Peer-to-peer refers to systems that work like an organized collective by allowing each individual to interact directly with the others.
In the case of Bitcoin, the network is built in such a way that each user is broadcasting the transactions of other users. And, crucially, no bank is required as a third party. A private key is a secret piece of data that proves your right to spend bitcoins from a specific wallet through a cryptographic signature.
Your private key s are stored in your computer if you use a software wallet; they are stored on some remote servers if you use a web wallet. Private keys must never be revealed as they allow you to spend bitcoins for their respective Bitcoin wallet.