Topic: Private blockchains connected to bitcoin's pow (Read 238 times)

I've researched about `SIGHASH_NOINPUT`and schnorr MuSig (n-of-n). Which will make it possible that all participants (owners) have a say in Merkle tree generated. With a small transaction.

And this Merkle tree will be used in a specific way which makes it possible for private blockchains to track and verify new blocks of those blockchains.

I don't think there's a difference. Except it will be possible to bulk multiple blockchains with one transaction per confirmation.
The main point is to reduce the load on bitcoin itself while being able to use the security it provides. Still There's a need for trusting the owner to keep the blockchain alive. But good part of it will be that the owner will not be able to double-spend without performing 51% attack on bitcoin.

This is a rough idea. I think it can be valuable.

"Private blockchain" Meaning a blockchain that's privately owned by someone. And at least private key is needed for producing new transactions for adding confirmations.

I would like to gather better technical description for it.

One of the important reasons that re-org exists in bitcoin. Is that no one would be able to kill it. By creating an invalid block at tip. This will be possbile for these private blockchains. But only one person is responsible for it. And all users can monitor it.  

I fail to see the "private blockchain" aspect of what you are describing above. What's the difference to colored coin / token approaches such as OMNI and XCP?

I did write a small article about privately owned blockchains. https://medium.com/@hosseamin/privately-owned-distributed-ledger-why-c685b81df7d

I'm just thinking this is the correct way to do it. For most applications trust to other party is essential. With these private blockchains audit of the ledger is being done by computers (any validation program can be written. smart/non-smart ). Probably only one proof-of-work chain is affordable. We better capitalize correctly.

For example all ICO's do have an issuer. In other words ICO's have owner. So why not use a private blockchain.

Trustless doesn't make sense to me. The point is to verify validity of the ledger and also ledger should be immutable thus connecting it to pow.

I have a clever idea in my mind which enables a private individual to create a blockchain and issue tokens while accepting some consensus rules between all parties. Using bitcoin's proof-of-work and It's re-org feature as the mechanism to reach consensus.

This has nothing to do with public blockchains were nobody is in charge. Instead the blockchain has an owner and It's in their self interest to not break the consensus rules since others are monitoring them. While users do not need to trust that person to not change ledger without doing a re-org on a pow chain like bitcoin.

This is probably not a new idea. The idea is that we use the feature of traceability of coins and apply a set of rules that disables all possibilities that the other party can break the chain created without doing re-org on the main chain.

With this ability one can argue all sort of blockchains including truing complete ones can be created with owners. Which in my opinion it is a better approach for doing things Etherium does. Since there's no need to verify validity of all tokens and chains.

But in my opinion this is still expensive for each blockchain to exist by verifying the traceability within the main chain. Instead this task should get delegated and bulked inside one transaction per confirmation. Though It's not important that all blockchains use the same transaction.

The solution for bulkanizing needs schnorr signatures (MuSig) to be efficient enough and owners would not need to lose the ability to maintain their chain by themselves. Since anyone that controls the chain can simply kill it by running away. This procedure needs a moderator to maintain bulkanized tx. Since there's a chance that any participant to go offline and disrupt the process. The moderator can come up with solutions at those times with least amount of bytes needed to get into main chain.

What you guys think about it?