Does a multi-chain "true" scaling solution have implications for privacy contracts?

I believe I have a very powerful scaling solution. It’s not just 1 sidechain. It’s a system of sidechains that can be nested inside of each other. For now, let’s just * assume this is a given. *

I know that the enigma currently uses a few selected nodes to process computations for smart contracts. What if this process was split between sidechains that were stable on their own?

Also, this may be useful information.
One of these sidechains is created and secured from a token contract in the parent chain. The scaling solution comes from the contract’s “tokenomics”, that leaves the sidechain’s protocol open for nearly any type of configuration. (that uses non 0% interest p.o.s.)


Nested side-chains to me sound similar to a plasma construct. In a Plasma chain the only way you can split work between chains is to go through this exit process - lock tokens in one chain and go to another one. So I am not sure you’d be able to enforce this given computations in different side chains will be asynchronous

Is that similar, at least in part, to an atomic swap?

“Enforce this” enforce what exactly?

Split the process of computation between side chains. Each chain will have it’s own state and they will be asynchronous. So I don’t see how this solution would work but if you provide more info, I’m happy to think about it. What’s the problem you are trying to solve? Scaling is too big of a problem. Is this for smart contracts, do you have a use-case in mind?

1 Like

Just because they’re asynchronous doesn’t mean they can’t synch up. There’s got to be a way. That’s how atomic swaps work, right? Hash Time lock contracts? Similar to synching.

And scaling isn’t. Well, in theory. I’ve come up with a solution for scaling. But I don’t feel comfortable “shilling” it here unless you ask for the white paper and testnet.
It’s token based. The smart contract creates a token and stabilizes distribution in a novel way.
Hard to believe, I know. And sock puppet accounts can’t attack it. Whales can’t buy it out, not even by proxy

So if a perfectly distributed token is a given, then a p.o.s. sidechain can be secured.

I want to know if the scaling technique has implications for privacy. That’s my use case

You’re right. I understand now. At some point, I totally over generalized atomic swaps as “chain to chain” communication.

There is a proposal that might help bridge the branches. Cross chain communication.
I’ve contacted them requesting an estimate for level of effort

Seems like plasma didn’t scale because of security degredation for nested sidechains and lack of fully decentralized childnchain protocols. Hopefully this utility token fixes it. And next we’d need that proposal to be implemented

I’m thoroughly convinced privacy will just be a service though. At this point.

At best An a.i. service. But nonetheless a service

@Econymous, will take a look into this paper

1 Like

Is it possible to build a plasma chain with smart contracts, variable blocksize, p.o.s. based off parent’s token & that doesn’t worry about transferring state of contracts to parent chain?

Oh yeah. And assets don’t need to go above their original chain.

Plasma chain is a means to end. If I understand what you want to build I can help. Feel free to drop an email at and I will reach out to talk in more detail. I cannot help you when you are asking questions at this level.

1 Like