High level architecture of a private DLT

The diagram above represents a simplified image of the most significant components of a private network:

The blockchain layer is the set of rules that define the whole consensus and the framework for deploying code to the blockchain

is the set of rules that define the whole consensus and the framework for deploying code to the blockchain The blockchain network bus is the set of nodes that are running the DLTs software, hence participating in the consensus algorithm that verifies the transactions. It also includes an API for operating with the blockchain

is the set of nodes that are running the DLTs software, hence participating in the consensus algorithm that verifies the transactions. It also includes an API for operating with the blockchain The business layer includes the data, application business logic and the connectivity layer

When the blockchain network bus only has 3 o 4 nodes, or even worse 30 nodes controlled by one single corporation, we must think whether it is worth compared to traditional software architecture, thus replacing the blockchain layer for a centralized data storage.

The blockchain nodes cause overhead to the IT department in terms of maintenance and keeping the MTBF as long as possible.

Though the deployment of these networks is made in the cloud, wrongly naming it “blockchain as a service”, it does not imply that there are many tasks that we have to keep doing, not to speak about the implicit centralization that does not mix well with trustless solutions.

Finally, once these silos require to connect to other company or corporation that does not trust the companies running the blockchain nodes or already has their proprietary private network, the following overhead appears:

Private Blockchain Interoperability

New connectors (A and B) have to be developed and integrated within the two private networks, plus a new piece of software (Inter DLT Middleware) that will orchestrate the oracles and facilitate the atomic inter-chain transactions.

Are we solving a problem here? Does it make sense such overhead for a more difficult to hack alike database? I don’t think so. We saw huge efforts made from big companies such as Maersk, joining forces with IBM to build the TradeLens platform and still, there is a lack of trust for new ports and terminals to join the network.

We have forgotten what the inner beginning of the Internet taught us. Before the end-to-end principle was taking shape there were several packet-switched networks isolated they began to thrive during the 60’s such as x.25, RAND, NPL, TELENET, ARPA. Until TPC/IP.

It happened a lot of time for that “flag-day” in January of 1983 when NPC (Network Control Protocol) changed to TCP/IP, and the adoption grew exponentially. By 1985 was already well established and adopted for researches and developers, and was beginning to be used for daily communications.

The rest of the Internet history is well known. It changed the world as we knew it.

Hybrid Blockchain Architecture: Ardor

Fixing the approach, as follow it is shown an innovative new architecture:

Ardor multi-chain general approach

The key concepts to understand this architecture are:

The parent chain Ardor takes care of the security of the whole public network. The owners of the nodes are entities, companies, individuals, and corporations that want to participate in the network. Everybody can participate and nobody controls it.

takes care of the security of the whole public network. The owners of the nodes are entities, companies, individuals, and corporations that want to participate in the network. Everybody can participate and nobody controls it. The chains “A” and “B” are child chains . They have all the functionality and features, they can be permissioned or permissionless and are owned by a project or a company

. They have all the functionality and features, they can be permissioned or permissionless and are owned by a project or a company The communication between the chains and the parent chain is made thanks to the bundlers. In the Internet Protocol a suitable analogy could be the routers.

If required, the interoperability between different chains is direct if it is needed. Interoperability to other blockchains is open with less complex protocols thanks to the bundler architecture.

Hence, we achieved a real blockchain-as-a-service solution, which even the consensus is part of the as-a-service. To understand a bit better let’s give an example:

If we were a country and wanted to issue a national cryptocurrency, we could spawn a child chain quickly for this purpose and we would use or leverage the consensus algorithm of a network of thousands of nodes. No maintenance and no infrastructure costs.

Why are we still looking to RAND, TELENET “private blockchains” solutions? Maybe the fault is the hype and the marketing, blockchain is still fancier than a centralized database with a higher level of security. Time will tell, but it is obvious what the right path is.