Side chain scaling and decentralization

  • Last Post 15 June 2018
extradext posted this 28 March 2018


So i have been trying to conceptualize how this dual blockchain will function in practice. Now I can finally picture it more clearly and am curious if my view is correct or practical for that matter.  This came to me while commenting on an article about lightning network. -- lightning on square   -This article.

And my idea of this second layer for scalability is how I imagine Soferox will ultimately function. ( it will be helpful if you read the article in the link provided) 

When the bulk of segwit-coin btc is ultimately tied to major hubs. Would it be possible for the primary off-hub users to determine which coins are trading on hub and fork their coin once again? Except their hard fork this time around excludes all on-hub holders from claiming their coins in the new fork.

I say this because it appears that they may be viewed as two separate coins in a way anyhow. Sort of similar to paying someone with cash vs. paying with a check..  Everyone knows that cash is king in this circumstance. However the problem would be that BTC would continue to gravitate towards hubs to pay for mainstream services. Which would mean that they can continually release funds back to the existing on-chain existence. For a profit of course. Seeing as the on-chain cash equivalent may contain more liquid value. But at the same time be susceptible to price manipulation via hubs. Hmmm...    Also, they will likely know who has what funds anyhow unless they are using alternate addresses than those with any link to a specific hub or spending pattern....

Furthermore, lightning network can then seemingly exist currently with BCH in the same way an exchange operates currently, as a centralized trusted platform. There could even be a separate blockchain to record internal holdings that is public and verifiable. Of which the funds can only be released to the address that they are designated to on the main BCH blockchain and only upon request from the holder of the private key to said address. The idea is like that of a decentralised exchange that is blockchain based but only exchanges one currency.  Is this a viable option to increase both security and scalability without slowing down BCH transaction times? Especially seeing as there are already zero conformation transactions being accepted without issue? Is this how Soferox might function as well? 

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Soferox_Pete posted this 28 March 2018

The ideas you are expressing are many of the issues Aaron and the team have been working on fixing.  What you are reffering to is the centralization of Bitcoin and it's related forks.  Soferox is different from the start because we are a unique novel chain designed to resist ASICs from the beginning.  So for clarity, what you refer to as "Hubs" are simply huge ASIC farms in CHina and other locations either near the manf. of ASICs or with abundant cheap electric.  

At first glance the Lightning network and Soferox Dual-Chain may appear similar there are a few key differences.  First, Lightening exists as a "blanket" lying on top of the BTC chain and acting kind of like a pre-approval layer or like a bouncer at the BTC club.  Soferox is two distinct blockchains, many redundant data exists on both chains to maintain high speed but the rule chain holds validation information and makes it highly resistant to forking and transaction bog-down.  


Does that answer your question?  I encourage anyone to read the documentation on our website for further information there are so many amazing ways this chain is going to be a leading cause of change in this industry!




extradext posted this 28 March 2018

I understand what it is you are saying. However what I am describing is an additional layer, (or layers) ran by independent organizations. That can exist completely separately so as to compete with one another to gain users. Either with lightning network or bitcoin cash. Or many other blockchains for that matter.

This model may or may not rely on a blockchain per se, as there can be multiple solutions that could be equally effective without one. Thus eliminating the need for miners all together. This way there is a potential for localized allegiance while sill having the main network completely decentralized. And thus more locally democratic to suit the needs of semi local populations.

But this is only the speculation of my curiosity you are witnessing. Nothing more. 

extradext posted this 28 March 2018

Not "eliminate" the need for miners but reduce stress and dependency on them.  All the while reducing the global economic repercussions that will inevitably (and rightfully so) come with the growing pains of blockchain adoption. ----But then again this conversation has many more factors that could easily be incorporated into its complexity as it grows. Such as, the need for miners to work on the additional layered blockchain any how they would be compensated. That is if that is the route that is taken by a competing organization. To have a DLT that is.  

Soferox_Pete posted this 28 March 2018

Have you read up on our proposed POP consensus setup?  It addresses a few of the competitive mining and energy wasting aspects of the current systems? 

locohammerhead posted this 15 June 2018

"designed to resist ASICs from the beginning. " Please stop lying.  I understand this is an old post but you decided to go with Scrypt, an algo that hasnt been ASIC resistant for years.  If you would have used a real CPU only algo you could have made this claim no problem.  Please stop lying to your investors about this being CPU only or ASIC resistant.  It's not.