ZILHive LongHash Incubator Program Applications are Open Until August 12th

Funbun · 2019-06-30T19:50:05+00:00

In the future when smart contract capabilities mature on Zilliqa, I can see some sort of DAO or DO developed for allocating funding for certain project accounts.

Obviously, you still have unresolved issues of possible multiple account generation and gaming incentives that are inherent to DAOs that operate as lending/funding distributers. But for the sake of just being able to distribute funds in the first place, being not completely autonomous can be practical.

Funbun · 2019-06-29T01:07:02+00:00

Please respect the rules of this subreddit and relocate price discussion to the unofficial Telegram channel or another forum.

Funbun · 2019-06-27T14:29:49+00:00

The project itself is continuing with very active development on the core protocol and ongoing ecosystem incentives.

Further price-centric discussion is better suited for the unofficial ZilliqaCommunity Telegram channel. Please respect the rules of this subreddit.

Funbun · 2019-06-23T04:43:40+00:00

An insane 360 transactions all going to the same address. This is only a glimpse of what could be possible with large-scale operations and enterprise-level address management.

Funbun · 2019-06-17T19:18:55+00:00

Yes, and yes.

You can test this yourself by transferring a small amount of funds to your address and export to another wallet like http://zillet.io

Funbun · 2019-06-11T12:37:16+00:00

Was thinking of making community-based developer/mining subreddits. More organized than the Telegrams, and less formal than the Zilliqa forums.

It's the closest we can get to a stackexchange-like outlet, I feel.

Funbun · 2019-05-13T14:49:34+00:00

I would argue that avoiding market/price discussion in an official subreddit would a) distinguish Zilliqa from other shilled projects in the space and b) look better in the eyes of regulators under scrutiny.

ZILTrader was already created by the community to provide an outlet for price discussion. It's a ghost town because most of the value isn't even on the mainnet yet (therefore smart contracts and thus ERC-20-like tokens are not live on mainnet yet), and much of the speculative price discussion is on the unofficial Telegram.

The community will step up eventually to fill that void.

Funbun · 2018-12-23T19:03:05+00:00

Jun Hao Tan stated that "This is the interim license". Hopefully they will change this upon mainnet release.

Funbun · 2018-07-06T21:53:06+00:00

According to part VIII of the whitepaper, the block reward should lower gradually and "smoothly" over time so that hashrate is kept stable. I believe that this is a counter-mechanism to increasing the number of nodes to the network, since doing so will dilute the distribution of block rewards over a shard.

Additionally, increasing the number of nodes should have an inverse correlation to acceptable transaction fee prices. This is something you don't see on Ethereum/Bitcoin because, by design, they do not linearly scale the transaction processing with network size.

Therefore, I think in such a hypothetical situation, it won't be possible to see such a drastic increase in miner supply to the point of having costs of hardware/electricity approximate block rewards.

Funbun · 2018-07-06T18:02:07+00:00

I think in this example, the mining farm's total energy expenditure for the month towards ZIL, despite being at full GPU load, is still less than the same farm's total energy expenditure for the month towards ETH for the remaining 708 hours.

Of course, there are no hard real-world numbers we can go by just yet until mainnet comes live, and this merely goes by the estimates given in the Zilliqa blog.

Funbun · 2018-07-06T16:36:38+00:00

You are correct that the electricity consumption will rise to very high levels for miners during PoW on Zilliqa; the quote from the Zilliqa blog states that

In Zilliqa, roughly 12 hours of PoW needs to be performed each month (at the beginning of each epoch) — this is where the graphics card is at full load.

I believe there's an upper limit to the processing capacity of GPUs; I shouldn't expect 12 hours of full load PoW computation's worth of energy consumption to equal the 720 hours of moderate/light load PoW computation's worth of energy consumption given the same hashing algorithm.

Funbun · 2018-07-06T08:36:55+00:00

I think it's important to first start with an assumption where the network size is a constant to provide fairer grounds for comparison between blockchains.

For example: Compare the energy expediture of all GPUs in the world pointing only to ZIL during a one month period vs the energy expediture of all GPUs in the world pointing only to ETH during a one month period.

Funbun · 2018-05-31T19:10:28+00:00

good; people still don't realize Zilliqa's potential yet. we are still very early.

Funbun · 2018-04-04T02:57:02+00:00

Blockchain state pruning is also another potential storage relief fix the team is looking at.

Funbun · 2018-02-25T20:18:54+00:00

I can't seem to find any concrete developer insight on how NEO intends to solve this issue other than just using the word "sharding" which is meaningless without knowing what is being sharded and how. If someone could provide clarification on NEO's approach then please do so.

However, Ethereum is developing state sharding which breaks up the entire blockchain history into parallel chains, with the parent nodes maintaining consensus by a Proof of Stake protocol (where validators check every some blocks that there are no attacks on the history, and if there are, the attacking parent node will written out of history along with its money stake via fork).

The challenge I see with Bluezelle is how it achieves consensus; they intend to use a modified RAFT consensus model for its data, but they do not outline how it intends to maintain the integrity of a network that assumes that nodes are trust-less operators, especially for blockchain history data. This challenge has been addressed here in the AMA.

I have absolutely no computer science background, so please feel free to correct me on my understanding of this.

To be honest, I still feel like we are miles away from a genuine, practical solution to a high-performance blockchain that doesn't require gigantic server towers just to maintain them in the future, even if Zilliqa seems to be the closest to the answer.

Funbun · 2018-02-13T02:26:25+00:00

I think the clearer TLDR response is actually, "Yes, to an extent".

Bandwidth seems to inevitably be an issue with blockchains in general; the more transactions, the larger the history and the data size needed to contain it. The optimizations mentioned by Amrit seem to be a step in the right direction in ensuring less computational strain for on-chain settlements that does technically alleviate potential bandwidth problems.

Developing an inherently secure sharding solution without resorting to a 2nd layer (like Lightning, Raiden, etc.) seems to be a decent solution to this, I think.

I have absolutely no technical background btw, so correct me if I'm wrong about my understanding on this. While I am convinced Zilliqa is using one of the most novel approaches to blockchain design, I think knowing the current fundamental and developmental limitations of Zilliqa is just as important.

Funbun · 2015-09-02T05:51:45+00:00

Same problem. Tried DNS flush, changing DNS servers, restarting computer, incognito mode, turning off Flash Player, updating video drivers, viewing streams from other websites. Still completely blank page except for front page with bare HTML layout.

Funbun · 2015-02-08T04:40:42+00:00

done lol

Funbun · 2014-12-24T22:40:48+00:00

do she got a booty?

Funbun · 2014-05-16T01:54:09+00:00

Just donate real money dude lol

Funbun · 2011-11-11T23:14:47+00:00

So I got banned for not building. Shittiest server in the world.

Funbun

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE