Bitcoin Forum

I've been watching Ardor's features lately, where it provides the use of Child Chains, to help make the platform scale.

I also know about Blockstream's proposed sidechains solutions for Bitcoin, as well as Lisk, proposing the use of sidechains.

Still, I'm a little confused towards which of these proposed solutions are better, since in my own opinion, Child Chains look very similar to Sidechains.

Is there any advantage over one another? What are the differences between them?

Sorry for asking, I just want to learn more about them, especially Child Chains, since I'm trying to get my head around it, exploring the Ardor testnet.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.  :)

Thanks for introducing me to the term 'Child Chains'.Who came up with this shit ?Let's just stick to the sidechains like the old school times ?
I don't know what this new fancy term means but sidechains are the apps forked from the main-chain running isolated (If I did frame that correctly).To help you with an example further,Lisk runs it's main-chain which can be used as a side chain for the apps developed using their framework.Doesn't mean the transactions won't be isolated from the main chain.

Apparently, the same developers of NXT, came up with a new platform called Ardor which introduces this new scalable solution named Child Chains, in which it is said that it could be a better alternative towards making a cryptocurrency scale, than sidechains. Still, I see them myself the same thing as sidechains so I don't get what the point is with this new method of increasing TX capacity.

Glad to know the facts about Lisk, when it comes to sidechains. I've thought that transactions were supposed to be isolated from the main chain (like each chain having their own set of transactions, thus reducing the load on the main chain).

Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to learn more about both of these proposed solutions, and see which would turn out to become successful in the long term, towards making cryptocurrencies scale.  :)

I have a hard time thinking about how the stakers or forgers will secure each sidechain or childchain if there are thousands of DAPPS in each platform. They advertise these new features but I do not think they have thought of a solution in implementing them securely except for the theories in their white paper.

Child chains would excite Dash and Monero's pedophiliac userbase.

I hope you know that I recently explained that Side-chains are fundamentally insecure and flawed. See my posts in Cosmos's Github Issues tracker.

Is there any place where I can learn more about the differences between child chains vs side chains? Appreciate any help.

PS:  Eagerly looking forward to your white paper and would love to invest in your ICO.

I'll try a short explanation, as there was no response yet, for those interested in the topic:

"Sidechains" are independent blockchains that typically have a kind of "pegging mechanism", where at least one of the chains (mainchain and sidechain) is "aware" of the other chain and both tokens are pegged 1:1.

"Child Chains", like the Ardor implementation, are much more tightly integrated into the main chain. In Ardor, all transactions of the latest 1440 blocks in all child chains are validated by all nodes from the main chain. That is a key difference to sidechains, where main chain nodes do not validate the sidechain (there may be clients that validate both chains, though, but it isn't mandatory).

There are two advantages of the "child chain" concept:
- first, the security is not only dependant on the strength of the child chain, because at least the last blocks are also secured by the mainchain nodes.
- second, it is possible to "prune" the child chain transactions, so that only the latest would have to validated. The mechanism is a bit complicated, but in short, the scalability advantage in Ardor is about 30:1 (a 1 GB blockchain using child chains could hold the same transaction amount than a 30 GB traditional blockchain.

Very interesting. I have not thought about this much, and have pretty much assumed all side chains were created equally (no matter if they were called sidechains or child chains or etc... a lot of terms exist.) If it is how you state, then I need to revisit the concept.

I am weary of Nxt and its derivatives though, because Nxt practically failed. It is good ya'll are trying to do a reboot with Ardor, but again I am a bit apprehensive due to the past performance of Nxt.

It can be both, it is what ever people want to call it.

Yeah. The explanation given towards sidechains and child chains is worth reading, as it helps you understand how they work in making a cryptocurrency scalable. In my point of view, I believe that the concept of child chains is better, with its introduction in the Ardor platform.

NXT was good in the past, but it will become outdated as Ardor takes the lead in development and innovation. With child chains, it could prove to become a more efficient blockchain platform, that will allow businesses and individuals to adopt it quickly, without the need to experience low transaction throughput.

If successful, then Ardor may have solved the scalability issues underlying most of the cryptocurrencies within the markets, making it a widely used platform for commerce in the digital world.

Nevertheless, whenever it is sidechains, child chains or even block size increase, it will be up to debate to determine which is best to make a blockchain the most scalable one possible to handle large transaction load from users in the mainstream world. Just sharing my thoughts ;D