Achain’s Fork Theory —— what do you think?

[zhuangxingyue1]

 Do sub-chains have to inherit all properties of the main chain? Is there an option of (even partially) not to?

[zhuangxingyue1]

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

[zhuangxingyue1]

 Emmmmmm........Regarding Point #6, who have the rights to vote on whether or not to split (and the type of splitting)? Is it just the token-holders, delegates, or all the community members?

[zhuangxingyue1]

Approximately when will the VEP 1.0 mentioned by Point 7 be available and take effect?

[kernighan]

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.

[kernighan]

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.

[kernighan]

 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?

[Anniee123]

I do not agree with you. I think such a view is foolish. After all, Achain's community has not yet been built yet. Do you want to fly before you learn to walk? ?

[kernighan]

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.

[regsintered]

I think it as a good thing when you try to help more people understand Blockchain

[Dluretic]

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?

[kernighan]

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

[kernighan]

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!

[Gordan101]

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...

[Tony Cui@Achain]

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.

[Rocket_Yang]

It is said that ACHAIN reputation in China is very bad, before the jubi exchange, is the achain author team co-exchange malicious price manipulation, resulting in a lot of investors lose the same investment.
This is just a goodwill reminder.

i can prove that he says is true

Is that true? There have been similar rumors before, but there is still no evidence that it is real, I hope you can change this situation

[Evangeline2]

I am also Chinese, achain just when I was concerned about the publicity, but also involved in achain ico. Although achain does not yet have a large online exchange, achain's technology and value are there, I believe achain should be able to enter the top 30 shortly thereafter.

[Javanewstar]

From your theories, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with Achain. What is the specific relationship between the redistributed sub-project and the original Achain?

[pgoneaaa]

 Regarding Point #6, who have the rights to vote on whether or not to split (and the type of splitting)? Is it just the token-holders, delegates, or all the community members?

[Rocket_Yang]

From your theories, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with Achain. What is the specific relationship between the redistributed sub-project and the original Achain?

"1.Our current elitist blockchain technology faces the challenge of opening up to the larger general communities. Creating new systems for various application purposes usually demands too much from new developers having just entered the game. How could they quickly develop secure blockchain applications? And where could they even start to find their first customers? "

This may be able to answer your question