For example: Microsoft Azure uses Proof of Authority (PoA)
POA network uses 2 tokens POA Bridge (permissioned) and POA20. (permissionless)
POA token transfers value in the POA network to POA20 (public Erc20)
(BlockScout sets a new standard for blockchain exploration tools by providing detailed insights for users looking to verify transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, sidechains, and private chains. )
PoA was proposed by a group of developers in March 2017 (the term was coined by Gavin Wood) as a blockchain based on the Ethereum protocol. It was developed primarily as an answer to the problem of spam attacks on Ethereum's Ropsten test network. The new network was named Kovan and is the primary test network available to all Ethereum users today.
Polkadot is a multi-chain framework that supports interoperability between wildly different chains with different properties, including encrypted proof-of-authority chains, suitable for internal enterprise networks.
RSK aims to create Bitcoin smart contracts and, currently, the sidechain allows scalability that reaches up to 100 transactions per second but, thanks to the implementation of Lumino technology, could reach 20,000.
GDPR compatible on permission blockchain: Organizations can deploy Fortanix SDKMS appliance nodes in a distributed manner. In each case, the Fortanix SDKMS cluster delivers centralized key management capabilities to any blockchain application or any device.
GDPR compatible on permissionless blockchain: The verification of the enclave using Intel Attestation Server is specific to SGX, and introduces some form of centralization. However, other attestation approaches are being developed and will be considered in the future. Still, once a secure communication channel is established between the enclave and the scheduler the logic stays the same. Therefore, the on-chain part is agnostic of the actual enclave technology, meaning iExec should support any enclave technologies in the future.
Source # PoCo Series # 4
Blockchain and the GDPR :
we propose four rule-of-thumb principles that entrepreneurs and innovators can consider: 1. start with the big picture: how is user value created, how is data used and do you really need blockchain? 2. avoid storing personal data on a blockchain. make full use of data obfuscation, encryption and aggregation techniques in order to anonymise data. 3. collect personal data off-chain or, if the blockchain can’t be avoided, on private, permissioned blockchain networks. consider personal data carefully when connecting private blockchains with public ones. 4. continue to innovate, and be as clear and transparent as possible with users.
Containers and microservices run independently, meaning less time spent on daily management. Developers can work without worrying about scaling and other problems associated with VMs.
Containers, faster than VMs, run directly on top of an OS kernel. This means they are lightweight and easier to move. Additionally, containers can be divided into unique sections with varying access controls.
Orchestration is quickly becoming a requirement for container management:
Orchestration technologies automate the deployment and scale-up of containers; they also ensure the reliability of applications and workloads that are carried out on containers.
Orchestration is the automated arrangement, coordination, and management of computer systems, middleware, and services.
Yes and no, The function behind Blockchain Ethereum or Bitcoin has been to exist in the market only the functionality is in a switch what is based on potential user case. Both for regulation and applicability. The market is in a wait-and-see phase. IMO Perhaps you can still answer the question: why does it take time to get distributed applications to mainstream adoption?🙂
BTC value appreciation was first based on the idea that it would in the future be a highly fungible, widely adopted medium of exchange (meaning store of value, because it would represent access to resources and services in general, and held for the purpose of future use), and then later greater fool theory based on the "digital gold" idea.As a single-service-use token, RLC likely cannot appreciate due to the same psychological motivations people had for buying and hoping for the appreciation of bitcoin value.Adding value later somehow in a way that is entirely unrelated to game theoretically useful tokenomics can be done, like adding a modest token burn on every payment. Some who performed ICOs have done this and it is a decent way to reward investors with appreciation. Something like the decentralized platform utility token version of the classic stock buyback.I wonder if they would really wish to do that though. I have heard no talk about it. Adding a fee based token appreciation mechanism that is not useful for the functioning of the network besides possibly to provide supply/demand stability and liquidity when it comes to tokens on exchanges, for marketplace users simply passing through the RLC token in order to exchange computing resources with fiat. Hmm I guess that could be argued to be justification enough, though some would disagree (not me).I'm more curious about things that is already known that will be there that affects token velocity. If there will be an update soonish regarding the good-actor-credibility staking function for suppliers, or even better, additional staking functions that provide some other utility for the marketplace, I will definitely check up regularly and spread the word if it looks promising for token velocity reduction beyond the medium of exchange function.
Exactly. It's still so early, the bull shit hasn't been killed off yet.For example the #100 ranked coin is "Bitcoiin" literally a misspelled Bitcoin, pure fraud... yet it carries a higher marketcap than RLC at #130... we have a lot of room to run up if RLC continues to deliver
@Malkovichy If the people who purchased in 2016 and early 2017 did not sell it and sold it at the end of 2017,He was a true winnerI believe in rlc, but I think it's only if the price of bitcoin is on the rise that RLC can record a high market capitalization
I have that. Look at Bitcoin. Buying because this is an SOV or is used because this is a payment method?If it was a means of payment, this should be a bit user-friendly for ordinary people. But BTC knows its strength not to cooperate with banks. No patent, a tool. For the simple reason that this new way of transporting value is open source. SOV? Perhaps when a major economic crisis breaks out. But then the question remains whether BTC carries the SOV meme in this innovative market.