 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
I think we will be told more about this at singapore blockshow summit!
When will it take place? Tony has a speech at 29 Nov |
|
|
|
Is it only available in English? Translations into other languages are not planned? I think they provide a Chinese version, but I can't find now. I once setup the ANN thread. Official guys seems has no plan on bounty program or translation bonus.  |
|
|
|
So the white paper has been updated? Yes, that's the latest one. Previous one doesn't include the forking network. |
|
|
|
I saw some valueable questions under the same posting in the Chinese Board (Chinse version), I did the translate.
Someone asked:
Any investigations on Lisk sidechains?
I suggest to look at the following techniques:
1. To solve the scalability problem with a Layer 2 protocol. (e.g. Lightning Network, Cross-chain)
2. To implement Ethereum's Sharding - to avoid the seizing of transaction performance between contracts
3. A more expanded version of Lisk's design of sidechains
4. Achain's fork theory
Pros and cons? Who's better than others?
Very good question, hope to hear more here...
Thanks for the thought. When we compare the four solutions we'll have to keep the following criteria in mind: security level, scalability, decentralizing level, and performance rate. So here we go on a scale of 1 to 10: 1. Lightning Network only works when relying on the Bitcoin main chain. It's good for transactions of smaller amount and higher frequency. It also lifts restrictions of performance of transaction authentication. But it does so at the expense of security level. Rating: 3 (security), 3 (scalability), 10 (decentralization), 8 (performance rate). 2. Ethereum's Sharding technique assigns different nodes to authenticate different transactions, thereby logically distinguishing out subsections of the chain. Like Lightning Network, it boosts performance rate. But it does so at the expense of its degree of decentralization. Rating: 8, 5, 3, 10. 3. Lisk has all of its applications built on its sidechains, which makes it more scalable. But it does so at the expense of security and decentralization. And as to what extent can the sidechains interact with each other, we are yet to find out through more research. Rating: 3, 7, 5, 5. 4. In Achain's Fork Theory, all sub-chains are equally independent (self-governed), and every one of them is free to decide to split into further forking. The ultimate mutual and reciprocal bond is the VEP (Value Exchange Protocol) for all to obey. It requires high technical commitment, which we will try our best to fulfill. Comparatively, Achain opts for the most balanced strategy. Rating: 6, 8, 7, 5. Really thank you, Tony! I am glad that you keep open mind to discuss any issues here!  I still dont get why LN harm security, Sharding harm decentralize, sidechain harm security. Maybe I need check those in details. While if you can share more about the reason, I do appreciate you! |
|
|
|
|
I follow you on below social media. How to get the reward
- Follow us on Twitter ($2 USD worth of LETs)
- Follow us on Mediun ($2 USD worth of LETs)
- Join us on our Telegram Chat ($2 USD worth of LETs)
|
|
|
|
Mining with cpu lasted for like 2-3 years.
There was official letter from Satoshi asking people not to use GPU mining so that more people can participate.
Of course there were people who ignored this and mined with GPUs anyway but it was hard because there was no apps for this so you had to write the programs yourself.
You can't really mine faster than ASICs as they are the most optimized hardware currently available. By definition ASIC is optimized completely only for making bitcoins. There is no higher class of hardware above it. You can only make a faster ASIC.
Do you notice Halong mining, which improve efficiency a lot. When BTC price is low, people does not invest money to design the chips. And when people designed it, alway mining themselves, and sell to you several months later. I heard this rumors a long time ago:) |
|
|
|
This is a foolish idea. I do not agree with this view. After all, listening to Chinese friends said that Achain's reputation in China is quite general, and there are not many people who are concerned about Twitter. Why is the first batch of users saying?
I alway suggest everyone could judge independently. What's Twitter are saying? whatever you support or not. Please provide information to support your opinion. That's helpful and sprit of blockchain! |
|
|
|
I think it as a good thing when you try to help more people understand Blockchain
Absolutely! do you know Achain collaborate with Tsinghua iCenter holding a blockchain classes. The courses are very serious. And I also notice Jimmy Song teach Bitcoin together with Stanford. Really helpful. https://bitcoinedge.org/event/stanford-devplusplus-2017 |
|
|
|
|
From my poor understanding, their fork theory try to resolve 3 issues.
1. Scalability:
I saw different solutions on this issue. If all business run on one chain, it has huge pressure on performance. And the nodes dont need all ledger but the ledger they cared about. From this perspective, it is good to have different block chain to support different business, and communicate with each other with careful authorization and trust (consensus).
I am NOT technical expert, while I heard different solutions. For instance, EOS and previous graphene from BTS could support really high transaction rate. And Vitalik also emphasized the performance issue is going to be resolved in next 2 years by "sharding" at DEVCON summit.
Also Lisk has side chain which try to make Dapp development as easy as possible at the same time. The side chain technology can partially resolve scalability issue ,if I understand the tech correctly, and kind of isolate security issue.
Ok. I missed the lighting network on bitcoin network and ethereum, the off-chain technology is suitable for low fee, quick, small payment, and also cross chain atomic exchange.
What's the advantage, difference, and the current progress of the each technology?
2. User base:
The recent Bitcoin fork show lots of debates. Some radical users support one of them, and look down upon others. While lots of BTC holders don't care the debates and only care the "free" coins. Should I say you can get free users from fork? I don't know, probably people just care free coins. The technology behind represent the core value. You need people support the core value, which need "real" innovation based on current chain. At this point, it related my next topic: do you think people who know very little about blockchain should fork any chain?
3. The barriers building one's own blockchain.
We have to admit it is still the early stage of blockchain technology. I dont judge on various blockchain solutions, and they are valuable innovations. The market may finally determine the winner, maybe it is the one what you think it is impossible. So I support more and more people enter this industry, learn, contribute, and evolve continuously.
I do think as a Dapp developer, he need understand the basic knowledge of blockchain, but no need to know the tech details of blockchain. For instance, he should never change the consensus, encryption, which should be done very carefully. However he could build the Dapp using his current skills on normal internet Apps. The blockchain cornerstone guarantee App transform into Dapp. So I think they are good attempts, like ethereum using solidity, even it is still vulnerable, and like NEO using multiple programming languages, and like Lisk which helps to build Dapp. We need avoid the issues on parity's multi signature, but don't stop try, what makes the technology improve.
Building one's own blockchain is similar with building Dapp? I am doubting. I am not saying we only need one blockchain in the world which could resolve all issues, but is it really good that every one build a blockchain easily? It's hard to differentiate scammer and real builder. And Achain has the rule to approve the fork. It doesn't describe the detailed rules, at this time I keep my neutral opinion.
|
|
|
|
Do sub-chains have to inherit all properties of the main chain? Is there an option of (even partially) not to?
I don't know the details, but in theory it could be, right? For instance, they can change the block size, the bonus of generating block, etc? |
|
|
|
Approximately when will the VEP 1.0 mentioned by Point 7 be available and take effect?  Probably Tony will tell more in Singapore Blockshow summit. |
|
|
|
If a sub-chain chooses not to subscribe to the main chain’s consensus mechanism (e.g. DPOS), can they adopt a different one?I'm sorry, my question may be a little more, because I am very interested in forking, so I hope everyone can help me to answer.......thanks
I think it is possible, but there are lots of work to do. Thinking about current ethereum and etheruem after fully casper being implemented, two chains with some common users. |
|
|
|
|
just like bitcoin cash, gold, diamond, sliver, segwit2, should I expect Achain cash, Achain gold, Achain diamond?
Make me rich please, Tony!
|
|
|
|
|
I hold some ACT, and enjoy the earning on it.
I hope this post and blockshow asia will boost the price to the moon!!!
|
|
|
|
如果是继承之前的链上数据，很想了解下作为子链方的自由度到底有多高？
另外子链是否能继续分叉下去呢？
从描述看，完全自由。 可以继续分裂 |
|
|
|
|
团队研究过 Lisk的子链技术吗？
期望对如下几种技术进行对比：
1. 通过Layer 2 协议，解决scalable问题。如闪电网络、跨链。
2. 类似以太坊分片机制，解决合约间对交易性能的抢占。
3. 类似Lisk的子链机制进行扩展。
4. Achain的分叉理论。
孰优孰劣？
|
|
|
|
你好，我想问下如果我不想用RDPOS，可以改成别的共识机制吗 从上面的内容理解，应该是分叉出来的链可以改共识，产块间隔，代理奖励，甚至加密算法，但是VEP是必须遵守的，否则和Achain的其他分叉链无法相互通讯。 Kernighan 又见面了~ 从你的阐述来看，如果我并不是分叉出来的子链，是完全和Achain没有关系的一条链，如果我接受VEP并加入的话，是否也能与Achian系互相通讯？ 我理解是的！ 就和3GPP或其他标准似的～ 能在国际上立一个5G标准，中国骄傲呀！ 如果区块链有一个类似标准，那可牛了！ |
|
|
|
|
另外，大家从Achain分叉，怎么募资？象比特币分叉一样预挖吗？
因为刚分叉时，如果我还不是代理节点，我怎么预挖，我没这个权利产块吧。会有悖论吗？
|
|
|
|
你好，我想问下如果我不想用RDPOS，可以改成别的共识机制吗 其实我一直没明白Achain的RDPOS啥意思。。。。。一般不是POW POS 和 DPOS吗，这个R是什么？ R是Result，看看白皮书有详细的解释。 根据智能合约的执行结果（Result）来决定智能合约的验证方式。 |
|
|
|
|
