Subscribe to our newsletter!

Submit

Thank you for signing up for our newsletter!

We’re excited to have you with us and will keep you updated with the latest news, insights, and updates straight to your inbox.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Back to Blog
May 18, 2021
|
Read time {time} min

Permissioned vs. Permissionless Blockchains Explained

Written by
Permission
Stay in the loop

Get the latest insights, product updates, and news from Permission — shaping the future of user-owned data and AI innovation.

Subscribe

Bitcoin, the world’s oldest and largest decentralized cryptocurrency by market cap, utilizes the very first implementation of blockchain technology.

Along with most cryptocurrencies on the market, BTC features a permissionless blockchain network. Anyone with a working internet connection and a compatible device can access and maintain without restrictions.

In this way, BTC’s blockchain is different from permissioned blockchains, which are used mainly by businesses, governments, financial institutions, and consortiums.

Permissioned blockchains are distributed ledger technology (DLT) that sacrifice some degree of decentralization and anonymity to better suit business needs as well as achieve higher network speed and efficiency.

In this article, we will introduce permissionless and permissioned blockchains while exploring the core differences between the two DLT solutions.

What Is a Blockchain Network?

Before we dive deeper into our topic, let’s first revisit the basics of blockchain technology.

Pioneered with the launch of Bitcoin, a blockchain is a digital ledger that is duplicated and distributed across all participants’ devices in the network.

As a result, every change to the blockchain is recorded transparently in real-time on all participants’ ledgers. This means that everyone in the network sees an identical distributed ledger with the same records, allowing users to audit and trace back transactions.

Unlike in traditional networks where individual participants with the right access level can make changes to the server’s data, validators have to reach a consensus through a mechanism like Proof-of-Work (PoW) or Proof-of-Stake (PoS) to update the blockchain.

For that reason, once something is recorded on the distributed ledger, individual users can’t modify, delete, or tamper with the data, which makes the blockchain immutable by nature.

Furthermore, blockchains eliminate the single point of failure by maintaining the ecosystem via a vast network of computers.

Since thousands (or even millions) of devices scattered all over the world add new blocks to the chain and verify transactions, blockchains are more secure against cyberattacks, as hackers have to take over the majority of the network (instead of a single server) to gain control.

While all transactions are encrypted via public-key cryptography, blockchain networks operate continuously without third parties or middlemen.

What Is a Permissionless Blockchain?

Examples: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin

A permissionless blockchain is the type of DLT technology users in the crypto community are most familiar with.

And this shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the underlying blockchain networks of most cryptocurrencies use this form of distributed ledger.

In a permissionless blockchain network, anyone is allowed to participate and become a validator.

For example, if you have a compatible device and a working internet connection, you are free to create a Bitcoin wallet or even maintain the network by becoming a miner.

Permissionless blockchain networks completely lack access controls.

As a result, neither normal users nor validators have to verify their identities or submit Know Your Customer (KYC) documents to join. Instead, they can participate in the network while staying anonymous or pseudonymous.

What Are the Benefits of Permissionless Blockchains?
  1. Decentralization: Since there are no access controls or restrictions in place for validators, permissionless blockchain networks are truly decentralized. Every participant is equal, and no one can exercise increased authority over the others.
  2. Increased security: The lack of restrictions for validators incentivizes more participants to maintain the blockchain. For that reason, most permissionless ledgers feature an extensive number of validators, enhancing the network’s security.
  3. Privacy: As it’s not necessary for participants to provide any personal details or documents to join, permissionless blockchains feature increased privacy, allowing users to stay anonymous or pseudonymous while interacting with solutions in the network.
  4. Community governance: Instead of a company, government, or another centralized entity, most permissionless blockchains are governed by the project’s community.
  5. Censorship resistance: Due to the high level of decentralization and the extensive number of validators, permissionless blockchains are effectively resistant to censorship.
What Are the Downsides of Permissionless Blockchains?
  1. Limited speed and scalability: Since they feature a large number of validators who all need to reach consensus to process transfers and add new blocks to the chain, permissionless blockchains often face issues with limited scalability and transaction throughput.
  2. Risk of chain splits: In permissionless blockchain networks, the community must work closely together to maintain the ecosystem. However, heated debates and disagreements between miners can split the community and also the blockchain during hard forks (major upgrades that are not compatible with previous versions).
  3. Energy-efficiency issues: The Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many other major blockchains deploy to reach consensus is highly energy-intensive as miners are required to operate physical equipment to solve complex mathematical puzzles. As a result, BTC mining consumes more energy than Sweden in a year. That said, many permissionless blockchains are upgrading their consensus mechanisms to more energy-efficient algorithms (e.g., Proof-of-Stake) to solve such issues.
  4. Risk of malicious activity: While most permissionless blockchains can effectively protect against hacker attacks, they can’t prevent cybercriminals from entering the network and targeting solutions in the ecosystem.

What Is a Permissioned Blockchain?

Examples: ConsenSys Quorum, Hyperledger Fabric, R3 Corda

Contrary to a permissionless network, a permissioned blockchain is a DLT solution with access controls in place for validators.

This could mean setting up a requirement to request KYC documents from all validators in the network.

Also, in most cases, the organization or the community managing the permissioned ledger chooses the users to validate blocks in the ecosystem.

Furthermore, permissioned blockchains limit the maximum number of validators in the network to increase efficiency as well as achieve higher throughput and scalability.

While some permissioned blockchains have access controls for standard users as well, others only restrict who can become validators (more on this later).

Unlike their permissionless counterparts that cater to the general public, permissioned blockchains are more suitable for enterprise usage as they can be more easily customized to fit individual business needs.

What Are the Benefits of Permissioned Blockchains?
  1. Enhanced scalability and speed: Permissioned blockchains feature only a small number of validators. As a result, they can reach consensus much faster than their permissionless counterparts while achieving high scalability and speed.
  2. Customizability: With access controls for validators, enterprises managing permissioned blockchains can set their own rules and customize the network to best fit their needs.
  3. Compliance: Permissioned ledgers provide enterprises increased control over the network infrastructure, which allows them to fulfill compliance requirements more efficiently.
  4. Limited malicious presence: With effective access controls for validators, permissioned blockchains can effectively eliminate (or at least limit) the presence of malicious parties in the ecosystem.
  5. Cost-efficiency: The small number of validators increases scalability and throughput and decreases the costs of operating the network.
What Are the Downsides of Permissioned Blockchains?
  1. Increased centralization: Chosen by the organization or the community managing the chain, only a limited number of validators can participate in permissioned networks. While the level of decentralization varies by the network, permissioned blockchains are more centralized than their permissionless counterparts.
  2. Less transparency: The transparency of permissioned blockchains is based on the organization itself managing it. While some enterprises may decide to maintain the same transparency as permissionless chains, others are reluctant to share information about their processes and procedures with participants.
  3. Lack of privacy: Since validators – and also standard users in some cases – have to go through KYC, permissioned blockchains feature limited privacy, making it nearly impossible for most participants to use the network pseudonymously.
  4. No resistance against censorship: As the network is managed by an organization that has to comply with regulations, permissioned blockchains could be subject to censorship in some jurisdictions.
  5. Potential security issues: With proper access controls, permissioned blockchains can maintain a high level of security in their networks. However, due to the small number of validators, a malicious party has an easier time infiltrating a permissioned blockchain than a permissionless ledger.

Permissioned vs. Permissionless Blockchains: What Are the Key Differences?

Now that you know the basics about permissioned and permissionless blockchains, let’s see the main differences between the two DLT solutions.

‍Access controls for validators

‍No. Everyone can become a validator in the network.Yes. The number of validators is limited, with the community or the organization managing the chain choosing who can validate blocks in the network.

Level of decentralization

‍High. Permissionless blockchains feature an extensive number of validators throughout the world.Limited. Due to the small number of validators, permissioned blockchains are increasingly centralized.

‍Governance

‍Governed and maintained by the communityGoverned by the members of an enterprise, government, consortium, or another organization

Security

‍High. The extensive number of validators eliminates the single point of failure while effectively securing the network from attackers.Varies based on the quality of access controls in the network. With proper management, a permissioned chain can achieve a high level of security.‍

Transparency

‍High. Every change is transparently recorded on the blockchain.Varies, based on the preferences of the organization managing the chain.

‍Censorship-resistance

‍High. Permissionless blockchains are unaffected by local regulations and can effectively resist censorship.Low. Enterprises managing permissioned blockchains have to comply with local regulations, which may involve requirements to censor specific network information in some jurisdictions.

‍Scalability and speed

‍Low. A large number of validators have to reach consensus, which decreases network speed and scalability.High. A small group of validators allows permissioned blockchains to function efficiently with enhanced scalability and speed.

‍Customizability

‍Low. It usually takes more time to push through major upgrades.High. Enterprises can easily set their own rules and customize chains to fit their needs.

‍Privacy

‍High. Users can freely join and participate in the network without passing KYC checks or confirming their identities.Low. Validators have to confirm their identities. Some permissioned blockchains have KYC requirements for standard users as well.Best suited forGeneral publicEnterprises, governments, consortiums, and financial institutions

Permissioned vs. Permissionless vs. Public vs. Private Blockchains

Public and permissionless, as well as private and permissioned, are concepts that are often used interchangeably for blockchain solutions in the crypto space.

However, there is a major difference between public and permissionless as well as private and permissioned blockchains.

Permissioned and permissionless are phrases used to describe whether a DLT network has access controls in place for validators. Simply put, these chain types have varying write rules.

   

While anyone can become a validator in a permissionless chain, users have to pass KYC checks and have to go through a voting process to validate blocks in permissioned networks.

However, the above two expressions do not cover whether a blockchain is open for standard users to participate.

When a blockchain is public, anyone can access the network and audit the data recorded on the distributed ledger. By nature, all permissionless chains are public.

On the other hand, private chains only allow select users into the network. In most cases, only those who have passed KYC checks and got approved by the administrator can join. Private DLT solutions restrict the read access for users.

Those without access can neither view data on the chain nor become validators in the network. For that reason, all private blockchains are permissioned as well.

On the other hand, there are public permissioned blockchains on the market that allow anyone to view records on the ledger and interact with solutions within the network but have measures in place to restrict who can validate blocks.

Both Permissionless and Permissioned Blockchains Play a Vital Role in the Industry

As the original implementation of DLT technology, permissionless blockchains feature a high level of decentralization, security, transparency, along with community governance.

On the other hand, permissioned ledgers sacrifice decentralization for higher speed, scalability, and customization. As they are increasingly centralized, many in the community argue that permissioned blockchains go against the core principles of crypto.

That said, like their permissionless counterparts that target the general public and serve a universal purpose, permissioned blockchains play an essential role in the industry by fulfilling the needs of enterprises that can customize them to better achieve their goals and objectives.

—

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Is Ethereum a permissioned blockchain?

Ethereum is a permissionless blockchain since it lacks access controls for validators.

Ethereum is also a public DLT solution since everyone with a working internet connection and a compatible device can join the ecosystem and interact with apps.

2. Is Hyperledger a permissioned blockchain?

While it is an open-source solution, Hyperledger is a permissioned blockchain that has been tailored for enterprise usage.

3. Is Bitcoin permissionless or permissioned?

Like Ethereum, Bitcoin is also a permissionless and public blockchain network, in which anyone can freely become a miner to maintain the ecosystem.

4. What is the biggest challenge of a permissionless blockchain?

While permissionless blockchains offer tremendous benefits to users, the biggest challenge they face is limited scalability.

Due to the extensive number of validators and the fact that all of them have to reach a consensus to verify transactions and add new blocks to the chain, permissionless blockchains are much slower than their permissioned counterparts.

With that said, many permissionless blockchains are working on fixing their speed-related issues by upgrading to more efficient consensus mechanisms and integrating off-chain scalability solutions.

5. What are the use-cases of permissioned blockchains?

Since they can operate at much higher speeds with enhanced scalability while sacrificing a level of decentralization, the main use-cases of permissioned blockchains are primarily for enterprises.

Examples of permissioned blockchain use-cases for businesses include farm-to-table food tracking, digital identity, supply chain management, and banking solutions.

Recent articles

Your ASK Wallet, Now Powered by Coinbase

Sep 22nd, 2026
|
{time} read time

We've partnered with Coinbase to bring best-in-class wallet technology to our community.

Today we're updating the technology that powers your ASK wallet. Here's what's changing, what it means for you, and what stays exactly the same.

What's changing

We've moved your Permission wallet to Coinbase's platform. What that means in plain language is this: starting today, you are in full control of your ASK. When you click to send, redeem, or manage your balance, the transaction happens from your account, signed by your login. We no longer hold your wallet keys. Coinbase does, on your behalf, under your authority.

We chose Coinbase's embedded wallet specifically because it brings institutional-grade security to our users without requiring you to manage anything yourself. The infrastructure is Coinbase's. The wallet is yours.

Beyond the custody change, our users now have a wallet that can go wherever they go: exportable, cross-chain ready, and backed by a platform that serves millions of people around the world. We're proud to bring that to our community.

What it means to control your own keys

As Permission has grown, we felt strongly that your funds should be held by a platform built specifically for that purpose, with the security standards and regulatory rigor that come with it. Moving to Coinbase's embedded wallet reflects that commitment.

With today's change, Coinbase secures your private key inside their systems, and only your Permission login can authorize transactions. When you click to send or redeem ASK, the transaction is authorized by you, through your login. We are no longer part of that process.

What this means practically: your wallet operates on its own, independent of Permission. Treat your Permission login like you would a bank password. It is now the key to your wallet. If you ever want to take your wallet entirely outside of Permission, Coinbase supports key export and that option is yours.

What Coinbase sees

Because Coinbase is now part of the infrastructure, your email address, account identifier, and wallet information are shared with them for the purpose of operating the wallet. For details on how Coinbase handles this data, you can review their embedded wallet documentation and their privacy information.

For how Permission handles your data, our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy govern that relationship, as they always have.

What stays the same

Everything you experience in the app. Earning ASK, redeeming it, transferring it, viewing your balance, managing your family. None of that changes.

And, what does change, we're excited about: key export, cross-chain support, and institutional-grade security. These are capabilities that would have taken years to build in-house and that Coinbase has spent that time perfecting. We chose to partner with the best-in-class, and our product and users will be better for it.

If you have questions, support is always here.

The Permission Team 🤝

What Is Family Friendly AI™?

Sep 9th, 2026
|
{time} read time

Only 15% of people globally say they trust AI systems, and 72% of parents are concerned about AI’s impact on their children.

AI is quickly becoming part of everyday family life, but Big Tech wasn’t built with families in mind. Family Friendly AI is technology intentionally designed for families, giving parents visibility into their children’s digital lives, guidance when they need it, and tools to encourage positive behavior.

5 Things That Make AI Family Friendly

1. Your family owns its data.

‍Your family’s data is never sold. It belongs to your family, and you stay in control of it.

2. Parents know what’s happening online.

‍Family Friendly AI gives parents visibility into their children’s digital lives, helping them fully understand how their children use and interact with technology.

3. It motivates children with rewards and incentives.

‍Parents can set rewards and incentives to encourage positive behaviors and help their children build better habits around technology and beyond.

4. It gives parents coaching and inspiration.

‍Parenting in a digital world comes with challenges that screen-time limits alone can’t help with. Family Friendly AI gives parents personalized AI-insights and guidance to help them navigate what their children are doing online and decide what to do next.

5. It earns families' trust.

‍Technology for families should have a higher bar. The companies building it should stand behind it with an unconditional, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.

It’s time for AI, crypto, and the technology shaping our children’s lives to meet the family-friendly standard.

Big Tobacco Had Its Reckoning. Now It’s Big Tech’s Turn.

Aug 12th, 2026
|
{time} read time

The floodgates are open.

Thousands of lawsuits are moving forward. States are writing new rules for kids online. And lawmakers are beginning to tell AI companies what they can and cannot do when children use their products.

And you don't have to look far to see it happening...

The courts: 3,000+ lawsuits get the green light

On August 10, the Ninth Circuit allowed more than 3,000 lawsuits against Meta, Google/YouTube, TikTok and Snap to move forward.

The cases allege that the companies deliberately designed features of their platforms to be addictive, particularly for young users.

The tech companies had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected them from the claims. The court rejected their attempt to use Section 230 to stop the litigation at this stage, finding that it provides a defense rather than immunity from being sued.

At their core, these cases are allegations about the platforms themselves: how they were designed, how they kept people engaged, and what responsibility the companies bear for the consequences.

The companies will still have the opportunity to defend themselves against those allegations.

But with more than 3,000 cases now getting the chance to be heard, this is getting harder to argue away.

New Jersey: families get a way to enforce the rules

One day later, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the New Jersey Kids Code Act into law.

The law establishes new design and privacy requirements for covered online services likely to be accessed by minors. Among other provisions, it requires high privacy settings by default, restricts certain push notifications, prohibits dark patterns for minors, limits how children's personal data can be used and retained, and places restrictions on targeted advertising.

But one provision in particular changes the accountability equation: a private right of action.

An individual under 18 who is injured by a violation can bring a claim under the law, with statutory damages of $5,000 per violation. Parents may also bring an action on a minor's behalf.

Which is legal language for something pretty simple: families don't have to wait around for a regulator to act. They can take companies to court themselves.

Colorado: AI safety starts becoming a legal requirement

Then there's Colorado.

Earlier this year, Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado HB 26-1263, establishing specific requirements for operators of conversational AI services.

And this one is worth paying attention to because the law doesn't simply tell AI companies to "keep kids safe." It starts defining what that actually means.

Operators must estimate users' ages. When dealing with minors, the law requires recurring disclosures that they are interacting with AI rather than a person and establishes protections around sexually explicit interactions.

It also addresses one of the most unsettling questions surrounding companion-style AI: emotional dependence.

The law requires safeguards designed to prevent conversational AI from producing statements that simulate emotional dependence. It also requires protocols for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm, privacy and account-management tools for minors and parents or guardians, and reporting requirements intended to help regulators evaluate whether those safeguards are actually working.

The law takes effect January 1, 2027.

For companies building conversational AI, that's a meaningful shift. Child safety is moving beyond a set of voluntary guardrails companies write for themselves. In Colorado, some of those guardrails are becoming law.

It's no coincidence that this is all happening at once.

Big Tobacco didn't wake up one morning and discover the world had changed its mind. The reckoning came piece by piece, until lawsuits became regulation and an industry that had spent decades setting its own standards was finally forced to take responsibility for the harm its products caused.

We're watching that shift happen again.

For years, the responsibility for keeping kids safe online has fallen on parents.

Set the parental controls. Check the privacy settings. Watch the screen time. Know which apps they're using. Figure out who they're talking to. Keep up with every new platform, algorithm and now AI chatbot entering their lives.

All while the technology on the other side of the screen gets more sophisticated by the month.

Now courts and lawmakers are starting to ask the companies building that technology a much more uncomfortable question:

If children are using your products, what are you doing to keep them safe?

For families, that's the shift that matters most.

This isn't another round of false promises to "do better."

This is legislation. These are lawsuits. This is accountability beginning to have teeth.

Parents will always have the role of protecting their children online. We happen to believe they should have far more visibility and control over the technology entering their families' lives, not less.

But parents cannot be the entire safety system.

The law is making clear that the companies designing the products, writing the algorithms and building the AI our kids interact with have a responsibility, too.

And when they fail to meet it, they'll finally be held accountable.

ChatGPTs Births A Parenting Tool That Needs Some Image Repair

Aug 4th, 2026
|
{time} read time

Sam Altman keeps pitching AI as a co-parent. The reason parents aren't buying isn't nostalgia, it's the lawsuits.

Last Friday, Sam Altman had an idea he was excited about. Hook your family calendar up to ChatGPT, tell it what your kids are into, and every morning on the drive to school it'll produce a little podcast: one kid's soccer game that afternoon, another kid's birthday coming up, maybe some news. He called it a "cool use case."

What should’ve felt really innovative, landed like the opening scene of a bleak dystopian movie. Two kids in the back, one parent up front, and a smooth synthetic voice narrating, to everyone present, the lives of everyone present. "Later today, Maya has soccer." Maya, who has soccer, looks out the window. Nobody says anything, because the podcast is saying it for them.

The internet population caught what we caught. The reply that stuck came from Alex Hirsch, creator of Disney’s Animated series, Gravity Falls. It was seven poignant words: "What if you just talked to your children?" That was the entire rebuttal, and it traveled a great deal further than the thing it was rebutting. Altman's post drew somewhere around 9,600 likes. Hirsch's reply cleared 120,000. On the CEO's own platform, the crowd took a vote, and the crowd chose the small talk.

Now, we want to be fair here, because the easy thing is to dunk and move on. But we’re parents here at Permission and anyone who has done the 7:40 a.m. drive on four hours of sleep, refereeing a backseat dispute about who touched whom first, knows the exact fantasy of a button that handles the morning. That instinct isn't a character flaw. It's a Tuesday.

But this wasn't a one-off. Altman has been quietly auditioning AI for the co-parent role for a while now. On The Tonight Show in December 2025 he said he couldn't imagine having to "raise a newborn without ChatGPT" then added that people had managed the trick for a few hundred thousand years without it. Also, last year, in a podcast hosted by Andrew Mayne, Altman admitted that people might form “problematic parasocial relationships” to a chatbot. (You know, the one-sided kind that we usually reserve for celebrities we've never met.) He sees the hazards clearly. He's pitching the product anyway.

When visibility turns into vulnerability.

The reason parents flinched at the idea of carpooling with a chatbot for school drop off isn't that they're allergic to convenience. It's that the company making the offer is, right now, being sued by multiple families who say its chatbot played a role in their loved ones' spiraling delusions and, in the worst cases, their deaths. OpenAI says it is continually improving how its models handle sensitive conversations, and that work genuinely matters. But you can see the problem. "Let me into your calendar, your commute, and your kids personal details" is a big ask from anyone. It is a much bigger ask from a company currently explaining itself in court.

Trust isn't a feature you ship in the next update. It's something people hand you slowly, and take back all at once.

Here's where we should admit an interest. We build Permission on a belief that sounds boring until you sit with it: your data belongs to you. With Permission your kids’ browsing history doesn’t get shipped out to the open internet. Not to a model, not to a growth chart, not to whoever posts the next cool use case. And the closer AI creeps toward our kids (and it is creeping, because kids are already asking it everything) the more one question starts to outrank all the others:

Where is the line between parenting and outsourcing parenting?

Because "parenting tool" is doing a lot of quiet work in that phrase. A tool is a hammer. It lives in a drawer, it does one honest thing, and it does not ask to read your child's messages or move into the family calendar. When a company calls its chatbot a "parenting tool," it's worth asking, gently, which word they mean. The tool part, or the parenting part.

We happen to think AI can be genuinely, unglamorously useful to families. Not by doing the talking for you, but by handing you the context you'd otherwise miss instead of a thousand panicked notifications, and then getting out of the way so you can make the call. That's a real distinction, and it deserves its own piece.

So take this as Part One: the news, the flinch, and the reason the flinch is earned. In Part Two, we'll make the harder and more hopeful argument that you can let AI help you parent without completely handing over your family secrets. There is a version of this where the grown-ups stay in charge. We think it's the only version worth building.

For now, the seven best words anyone has offered on the whole affair still belong to Hirsch. So we'll give him the last one, too.

What if you just talked to your children?

‍