Your side chain needs enough nodes and hashing power to counter 51% attacks.
You're pegging your side-chain coin value to the main-chain, but your transactions, blockchain, basically everything becomes independent. It's obvious that in the case someone gets control over 51% of the nodes or hashing power of your chain, they could pick transactions to double spend, or through a sybil attack if they control too many nodes. Your problems are exactly the same of every other chain, with only 2 differences :
1. The initial coins you used to create the side-chain are what you would hypothetically call your "genesis block".
2. You can exchange those coins to main-chain coins at the designed rate when you distribute your side-chain coins.
Topic: Can you secure a sidechain with it's main chain? EDIT: Ardor does this. - page 2. (Read 392 times)
January 30, 2019, 12:24:30 AM
January 30, 2019, 12:21:21 AM
Hey so I am researching sidechains, I see how useful they can be for new coins that want to remain independent but still draw power from an already established network, but one problem I saw is that "Sidechains are responsible for securing their own network". Does this mean that it's impossible for a side chain to use the securing power of it's main chain to secure itself and it's transactions or is there a way around this?
Hey there. I did thought about the same thing. It should not be like that. look at my tweet to @TruthCoin
https://twitter.com/hosseamin/status/1090459542364848133
It should not or is not? Are you saying that it should be changed or that sidechains are not like that inherently?
January 30, 2019, 12:04:31 AM
Hey so I am researching sidechains, I see how useful they can be for new coins that want to remain independent but still draw power from an already established network, but one problem I saw is that "Sidechains are responsible for securing their own network". Does this mean that it's impossible for a side chain to use the securing power of it's main chain to secure itself and it's transactions or is there a way around this?
Regardless of re-org rules. All nodes should reach consensus. This is the main point.
January 29, 2019, 11:57:08 PM
Hey so I am researching sidechains, I see how useful they can be for new coins that want to remain independent but still draw power from an already established network, but one problem I saw is that "Sidechains are responsible for securing their own network". Does this mean that it's impossible for a side chain to use the securing power of it's main chain to secure itself and it's transactions or is there a way around this?
Hey there. I did thought about the same thing. It should not be like that. look at my tweet to @TruthCoin
https://twitter.com/hosseamin/status/1090459542364848133
Edit: I'm wrong here,
Take a look at page to for the explanation
January 29, 2019, 11:45:25 PM
Hey so I am researching sidechains, I see how useful they can be for new coins that want to remain independent but still draw power from an already established network, but one problem I saw is that "Sidechains are responsible for securing their own network". Does this mean that it's impossible for a side chain to use the securing power of it's main chain to secure itself and it's transactions or is there a way around this?
EDIT: I was doing more research and I read more about Ardor, in which I saw that Ardor claims that their child chains ARE secured by the main chain and that those who create child-chains do not have to worry about security. How does that work?
EDIT: I was doing more research and I read more about Ardor, in which I saw that Ardor claims that their child chains ARE secured by the main chain and that those who create child-chains do not have to worry about security. How does that work?
Jump to: