Could Extremely Small Peershares Instances Make Use of Peercoin Sidechains?

Projects
1

So in this update, everybody seems to think Sunny may be hinting at sidechain development for Peercoin. This made me think of how it could be used for Peershares. Please excuse my ignorance if I’m incorrect about anything here. Each Peershares instance uses its own blockchain based on Peercoin’s proof-of-stake technology. From what I understand though, extremely small implementations of Peershares (Small businesses) might not be possible.

If Sunny was to implement sidechains in the future, could Peershares be altered so each Peershares instance would run on its own sidechain? This should allow even smaller businesses to use Peershares, since each Peershares instance would be secured by the minters from the main Peercoin network. This would also prevent the main Peercoin blockchain from growing in size. The only downside I see is that each Peershares instance would then be dependent on the success of Peercoin as a currency. Because if Peercoin went, the sidechains would go as well.

Again, sorry, if I have no idea what I’m talking about. My technical knowledge about how possible these things are is limited.

2

It’s not infeasible. I think Peershares could certainly be modified in such a way. I’m not entirely keen on the side-chain technology, but allowing for Peershares chains integrated with the Peercoin blockchain could provide some benefits. I believe there’s an idea being discussed to have it support multiple Peershares blockchains within one client. Extending this idea with side-chain technology could work well? As I understand, side-chains allow you to transfer assets between blockchains which sounds like it could offer some benefit to a client that can have multiple implementations of asset offering.

But I may not have a full understanding of what i’m talking about either :slight_smile: . It’s fun to think about though. Both Peercoin/Peershares/Side-chains will need a lot of evolving before we can really see what’s possible.

3

I invested in Peercoin because of Sunny King. I also know that many people invested in Peercoin because of Sunny King.

4

It could work, but consider this risk:

[ol][li]Many Peershares sidechains are launched[/li]
[li]Of these, one of them is sidechain-minted by only 6% of the minting Peercoins[/li]
[li]To attack this sidechain, one needs only 6.1% of the minting Peercoins, in order to overtake the competing 6%. None of the tokens within the sidechain are needed, unlike in Peercoin.[/li][/ol]

You might argue that all minting Peercoins would sidechain-mint all sidechains at once, but as the number of sidechains grows, this may not be true, as the reward for minting may be dwarfed by the cost to mint on the chain. (Data storage and CPU power are both needed, though minimally, per chain.) I think security of sidechains would end up being weaker than security of Peercoin itself.

I could be wrong.

5

[quote=“Chronos, post:4, topic:2755”]It could work, but consider this risk:

[ol][li]Many Peershares sidechains are launched[/li]
[li]Of these, one of them is sidechain-minted by only 6% of the minting Peercoins[/li]
[li]To attack this sidechain, one needs only 6.1% of the minting Peercoins, in order to overtake the competing 6%. None of the tokens within the sidechain are needed, unlike in Peercoin.[/li][/ol]

You might argue that all minting Peercoins would sidechain-mint all sidechains at once, but as the number of sidechains grows, this may not be true, as the reward for minting may be dwarfed by the cost to mint on the chain. (Data storage and CPU power are both needed, though minimally, per chain.) I think security of sidechains would end up being weaker than security of Peercoin itself.

I could be wrong.[/quote]

Sidechains is all very interesting and I think no one knows very much yet.

Security of the sidechain will be crucial, I would think, as security is of fundamental importance in all cryptos.

PoW where how much you can hash determines all is a model wherein hashing capacity is precious and rare so PoW sidechains will likely all be dependent on shared hashing resources, ala merge mining. A problem area for PoW sidechains could be that the miner or mining pool will only support some sidechains and not others, so like Chronos indicates above the security is greatly diminished on sidechains which haven’t curried the favor of the mining pool managers.

On the other hand, a PoS sidechain has the resources that it brought with it from the parent or mainchain and those resources are everything to the sidechain. With PoS sidechains the security could be high I would think because a PoS sidechain would not be dependent on merge minting from the mainchain as PoW would likely be. PoS sidechain security is dependent on a majority of the allocated resources of the sidechain itself, so why couldn’t it be rock solid? PoS sidechains could have self-contained security. Yes?

Additionally, the PoS sidechain creating its own internally allocated security and being freed from dependence on merged mining of the main chain can run at any desired block creation rate and even run turing complete algos ala Ethereum, smart contracts and all kinds of wild and wonderful still to be created things. The self-secured PoS sidechain can do almost anything and if it is good, healthy and useful it lives, and grows in value.

6

It will just go to show that evolutional advantage of POS vs POW may have consequences of many species’ extinction or thriving.