"Make your idea possible. Zilika enables new solutions for global issues through Zilica's scalable, secure, high-performance public block platform platform. "
En Hui Ong
Head of BD
With Zilliqa, do more with ...
Note: ➤ We’re on Slack and Telegram! Join our community, ask us questions, and get updated on the latest (and hopefully the greatest!)It’s hard to turn anywhere and not find someone talking about the influence of blockchain technology and the various virtual currencies supported by it. Popular cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum rely on armies of miners to process and confirm the transactions that make up the blockchain platforms of each.While the payout for confirming blocks may be significant, the costs in terms of energy consumption are as well. One estimate provides data indicating that the Bitcoin blockchain currently incurs an energy toll fast approaching 28 TWh per year, while the Ethereum blockchain consumes around a third of that at close to 10 TWh per year. These numbers roughly correspond to the electricity consumption of medium-sized countries like Ireland, Bahrain or Georgia.Why Bitcoin/Ethereum mining is costly?The reason behind the high cost of mining has to do with the mechanism through which miners create blocks. The mechanism known as Proof of Work (PoW) pits processors against difficult math problems whereby proving the correctness of the solution and verifying it is very easy. However, deriving that specific solution is computationally intensive and hence energy consuming. In a PoW blockchain, every transaction is part of some block and the creation of each block requires huge computational effort.While a PoW based system may be reliable as far as maintaining consensus is concerned, it is unfortunately not energy efficient. To create a block all miners work simultaneously, flipping hashes to crunch out the right answer to the problem. The rule of the game is that only one can succeed, so a majority of the computing power that goes into solving each block is entirely wasted. The resulting energy cost poses an obstacle to the long term efficacy of mining with PoW.Zilliqa’s EdgeZilliqa believes that there is a better way to mine. Zilliqa’s alternative methodology makes use of the merits of PoW coupled with a practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant (pBFT) protocol. Miners use PoW to establish their identities on the Zilliqa blockchain. Once the identities have been established, miners get assigned to a consensus group wherein multiple rounds of PBFT consensus can be run. Performing one PoW in turn writes multiple blocks to the chain, and thus provides greater and guaranteed rewards.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. During the rest of the time, the graphics card will be running in idle mode where minimal electricity is consumed. The estimated electricity cost of mining on Zilliqa is about USD 2.8/month in Singapore. In contrast, the cost of mining Ethereum is estimated to be about 9 times more at USD 26.25/month as the graphics card needs to be mining consistently for every new block.Miners on Zilliqa will hence consume less energy which would make mining much less costly than other PoW based blockchains. And most importantly, Zilliqa mining will have less impact on the environment.Icing on the cakeZilliqa comes with two other benefits for its miners and users. First, the total energy cost per transaction will be constant as the network expands. Compare this with blockchains such as Ethereum or Bitcoin where the total energy cost per transaction increases with the network size. Second, we expect the transaction fees in Zilliqa to be much lower than those in Bitcoin or Ethereum.Zilliqa employs a technique called sharding, whereby the mining network is divided into several consensus groups, each capable of processing transactions in parallel. The use of sharding ensures that the throughput increases roughly linearly with the network size. This has two immediate benefits. Below we discuss these two advantages in further detail.Constant mining cost per transaction: The linear scaling property in Zilliqa implies that the following quantity: mining cost for the network /#transactions processed is roughly constant. To see this, consider the case where the network doubles its size. Then both the total mining cost and the number of transactions processed double. As a result, their ratio remains constant. This is clearly not the case with Bitcoin or Ethereum as the number of transactions processed remains at 3–7 tx/s even as the network size grows. As a result, the cost of processing a transaction becomes larger and larger as the network expands.Low fees per transaction for users yet high aggregated fees for miners: Due to the limited throughput in popular blockchains, miners tend to prioritize processing transactions ladened with higher fees to cover their costs of operation. However, those mining on the Zilliqa blockchain will be incentivized simply by the magnitudes of scale with which transactions will be capable of being processed. Zilliqa believes that an increase in the transactions processed per second will eventually drive down the competition for transaction fees, and the resulting climate will cause miners to adjust their expectations.ConclusionsWith Zilliqa, cryptocurrency miners will have a cost effective choice when they boot up their rigs. Zilliqa will harness the security that comes from PoW and yet will reduce the associated energy footprint and make mining more profitable.It is clear that more nodes in the network yield better decentralization. However, a larger network in existing blockchain designs leads to a larger wastage in terms of electricity consumed per transaction by the network. With its sharding technology, Zilliqa can make the most of a large network while keeping the cost of processing a transaction to a constant value.We thank one of our slack members @Julian Sarcher who pointed out the fact that linear scaling in Zilliqa implies the energy cost per transaction is constant.➤ Follow us on Twitter,➤ Subscribe to our Newsletter,➤ Subscribe to our Blog,➤ Ask us questions on Slack or Telegram.With Zilliqa, do more with your GPUs, miners! was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 11. 17
Bounty program for 4 weeks,...
Refer to https://blog.zilliqa.com/zilliqa-bounty-program-68e6b7e8016f for a more complete version of the bounty programTL;DRThere are 3 categories of bounty program:Community Creativity BountySocial Network BountyActive-Supporter Award1. Community Creativity Bounty — (20k USD worth of ZILs allocated)Content creationReferral for content creationTranslationInterested please go to: https://bit.do/zilliqacommunitybounty. For further enquiries, please contact the admins on Telegram @zilliqachat.2. Social Network Bounty — (20k USD worth of ZILs allocated)Points-based system; Bounty will be distributed based on points awarded; Every week, 5k USD worth will be distributed and then the points reset to zeroMediumFollow us = 5 pointsRecommend 5 posts = 10 pointsRecommend 10 posts = 20 pointsSlack (invite.zilliqa.com or zilliqa.slack.com)Join = 10 pointsTelegram (t.me/zilliqachat)Join = 10 pointsInvite 5 = 10 pointsInvite 10 = 20 pointsInvite 15 = 30 pointsTwitterLike and retweet @zilliqa tweets5 tweets = 5 points10 tweets = 10 pointsCreative tweets with #ZILLIQA (2 tweets per day max)5 tweets = 10 points10 tweets = 20 pointsSuggested tweets:What you think are the coolest features of ZilliqaWhat use cases you would like to see Zilliqa being applied toNote: You must have at least 250 followers to be eligible. If you have >1000 followers, you will receive an additional 25% on the total number of points accumulated in that week. If you have >5000 followers, you will receive an additional 50% of points. No fake or spam accounts will be tolerated. We will validate your accounts using TwitterAudit. Duplicated or inappropriate tweets/retweets are not counted. Also, Zilliqa status/maintenance tweets such as https://twitter.com/zilliqa/status/925983122629337088 will not be counted.GO TO “How to Participate” section below to see instructions on how to participateWe target to have:** 5,000 Twitter followers** 5,000 Slack members** 1,000 Medium followers** 5,000 Telegram membersIMPORTANT: If we reach the above social media goals, we will increase our allocated bounty by 50% to USD 30,000 (equiv. ZILs).3. Active-Supporter Award — Higher Individual Contribution CapIf you are interested in reserving a higher individual cap for Zilliqa’s public sale, please indicate your desired contribution by filling in the form https://bit.do/zilliqaactiveaward. To be eligible for this award, you need to either be an active participant in our Slack/Telegram groups or participate in any of the above bounty programs. We will try to accommodate as many early supporters as we can, so please email us as soon as possible. However, we reserve full discretion in granting, adjusting, or rejecting such requests.How to participate1. Check your eligibility according to the Disclaimer below.2. Fill in the registration form.3. Follow the following instructionsTwitter :Upon filling in the form, the user must dm (direct message) “zilliqabounty” Twitter with the following string,“This is to verify my twitter account. My eth address is <your actual eth address>”Slack:Upon filling in the form, the user must dm (direct message) “zilliqabounty” on Slack“This is to verify my slack account. My eth address is <your actual eth address>”Telegram:Upon filling in the form, the user must dm (direct message) “zilliqabounty” on Telegram“This is to verify my Telegram account. My eth address is <your actual eth address>”Any mismatch between the submitted information in Google Docs and the various social media accounts may result in disqualification or withholding of bounty payouts (at the Zilliqa team’s discretion)._DisclaimerDue to jurisdiction constraints, US persons and residents of UK, China (except Hong Kong) and Japan are not eligible to participate in this bounty program. You confirm you do not belong to any of these categories, and you also agree to avoid marketing Zilliqa’s token offering to any such persons/entities.For legal requirements, please note that KYC will be required before tokens are awarded at a later stage. We seek your kind understanding in fulfilling KYC requirements.Our Official ChannelsWebsite: https://www.zilliqa.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/zilliqaBlog: https://blog.zilliqa.comSlack: https://zilliqa.slack.com or https://invite.zilliqa.com (Invite link)Telegram Chat Group: https://t.me/zilliqachatYoutube channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvinnFbf0u71cajoxKcfZIQReddit (for general discussion): https://www.reddit.com/r/zilliqaBounty program for 4 weeks, from 4 Nov 17 to 1 Dec 17 (TL;DR version) was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 11. 08
The Zilliqa Design Story Pi...
Note: ➤ We’re on Slack! Join our community, ask us questions, and get updated on the latest (and hopefully the greatest!)With our previous article, we started a series to present Zilliqa’s design and protocol details. In the previous article, we discussed the idea of sharding — the core idea that makes Zilliqa scale, i.e., ensures that Zilliqa’s throughput increases (roughly) linearly with the increase in the network size.In this article, we present the second most crucial component of Zilliqa — its underlying consensus mechanism. Note that while reading the previous article first will certainly be useful, the current one does not require much background baggage either and should be an independent read.A quick recap of Part 1 on network sharding. In our previous article, we presented the idea of network sharding. Through network sharding, Zilliqa divides the mining network into smaller groups each referred to as a shard. Each shard is capable of processing transactions in parallel and hence yield high throughput. For security reasons, a shard must be sufficiently large, say with more than 600 nodes. Zilliqa performs network sharding using PoW.Importance of consensus protocol for high throughputNetwork sharding on its own cannot guarantee high transaction throughput. This is because the throughput is also determined by how fast each shard can agree on the next set of transactions and propose the next block.Agreement requires an efficient consensus protocol. The ideal consensus protocol for Zilliqa would be the one that could leverage the small shard size (around 600 nodes) and make each shard reach consensus quickly.How about using Bitcoin/Ethereum’s consensus protocol?An alert reader may notice that the shard size mentioned above is much smaller than a regular blockchain P2P network as in say Bitcoin or Ethereum, where the network is composed of tens of thousands of nodes. Then, why cannot Zilliqa use the same consensus protocol (as in Bitcoin/Ethereum) and run it within each shard? Moreover, since the shard size is much smaller than a regular network, the consensus among the shard members could also be reached much faster.However intuitive this may sound, but, just because the shard size is small, it does not directly yield a fast consensus protocol.To see this, let us look into the consensus protocol currently in use in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Both these blockchain platforms employ what is often referred to as the Nakamoto consensus (named after its inventor Satoshi Nakamoto who first used it in Bitcoin).Nakamoto consensus is a very simple and elegant probabilistic consensus mechanism. It works in the following manner: At roughly regular time intervals, the network elects a leader and the leader proposes a block that he thinks should be the next block. He then broadcasts the block to the network and nodes accept or reject it. The leader is incentivized to propose valid blocks that respect some system constraints such as no double spend.The key to Nakamoto consensus is the way the leader is elected. At roughly regular intervals, each node in the network does a PoW. The node that does it the fastest gets to become the leader. Clearly, PoW must be sufficiently hard so that there is only one leader (with high probability).PoW being computationally intensive requires time and can slow down the consensus protocol. Moreover, it does not depend on the number of nodes in the network rather on the collective computational capacity of the network. Hence, if employed in Zilliqa, PoW as a consensus mechanism cannot directly leverage the small shard size. This is why Zilliqa needs a different consensus protocol.Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) to the rescueZilliqa employs practical byzantine fault tolerance protocol aka PBFT for consensus within each shard. The protocol was proposed by Castro and Liskov in 1999. It runs under the assumption that before the start of the protocol a fraction say up to 1/3 of the nodes in each shard can be malicious.There are several reasons why we chose PBFT as our consensus protocol. The main one being that its efficiency depends on the size of the network and hence can potentially exploit the small size of the shards. Other benefits of PBFT are discussed later in the article.In PBFT, all the nodes within a consensus group (a shard in our case) are ordered in a sequence, and it has one primary node (aka a leader) and the others are referred to as backup nodes. Every round of PBFT has three phases as discussed below:Pre-prepare phase: In this phase, the leader announces the next piece of record that the group should agree on. This is done by sending a “pre-prepare” message.Prepare phase: Upon receiving the pre-prepare message, every node validates the correctness and validity of the record and multicasts a “prepare” message to all the other nodes.Commit phase: Upon receiving the prepare messages from a super-majority, each node multicasts a commit message to the group. Finally, each node waits for commit messages from a supermajority to ensure that a sufficient number of nodes have agreed on the record proposed by the leader.In fact, at the end of the three phases, all honest nodes either accept the record or reject it.PBFT relies upon a correct leader to begin each phase and proceed when a sufficient majority exists. In case the leader is malicious, it can stall the entire consensus protocol. To address this challenge, PBFT offers a view change protocol to replace the malicious leader with another one. In fact, if the nodes do not see any progress for a bounded time, they can independently announce the desire to change the leader. If a super-majority of nodes decides that the leader is faulty, then the next leader in a well-known schedule (such as round-robin) takes over.Other Benefits of PBFTApart from the fact that PBFT can leverage the small shard size, it has several other benefits over Nakamoto-style consensus protocol.Transaction finality: PBFT gives finality to the consensus decision. This means that if PBFT is used to reach consensus on the next block, then the proposed block is final and the agreement is exact. As a result, no confirmations are needed. This is in contrast with Nakamoto consensus (as employed in Bitcoin), where the agreement is only probabilistic. As a result, 6 confirmations roughly equivalent to 1 hour is needed to have some cushion against double spend attacks.Low energy footprint: Since PBFT is not computationally intensive, it reduces the energy footprint for miners. In fact, Zilliqa uses PoW only to prevent sybil attacks and establish node identities, but not for consensus. This means that once identities have been established, several rounds of PBFT protocol can be run to agree on multiple blocks in a row. As a result, PoW can be done only say after every 100 blocks. This is in contrast with Nakamoto consensus, where a PoW is required per block.Low reward variance: PBFT consensus protocol requires collective decision through voting on records by signing messages. This is in contrast with Nakamoto consensus, where, only the leader proposes the next block. Hence with the use of PBFT, the incentive layer can be designed to incentivize every participating node. This further lowers reward variance for miners.Challenge with PBFTPBFT is clearly a promising solution to reach consensus in Zilliqa. However, it has a major drawback: it is efficient only when the size of the consensus group is small, i.e., less than 50. But, as discussed in our previous article, for security reasons, the shard size in Zilliqa has to be at least 600.The main reason why PBFT is inefficient for a large network is its underlying communication overhead. Each node in the consensus group has to talk to every other node and hence this leads to a quadratic communication cost.In our next post, we will explain how Zilliqa solves this challenge with PBFT. Stay tuned!Here’s how you can follow our progress — we would love to have you join our community of technology, financial services, and crypto enthusiasts!➤ Follow us on Twitter,➤ Subscribe to our Newsletter,➤ Subscribe to our Blog,➤ Ask us questions on Slack.The Zilliqa Design Story Piece by Piece: Part 2 (Consensus Protocol) was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 10. 29
The Zilliqa Design Story Pi...
Note: ➤ We’re now on Slack! Join our community, ask us questions, and get updated on the latest (and hopefully the greatest!)As introduced in our previous introductory article, Zilliqa is a new blockchain platform capable of processing thousands of transactions per second. Zilliqa hence has the potential to rival traditional payment methods (such as VISA and MasterCard). Even more importantly, Zilliqa’s transaction throughput increases (roughly) linearly with its network size.This article starts a series in which we break down Zilliqa’s design piece by piece. In this article, we present the core idea of sharding that makes Zilliqa scale. Sharding in Zilliqa takes many forms: network sharding, transaction sharding, and computational sharding. The most important being network sharding as the other sharding mechanisms are built atop the network sharding layer.So, what is network sharding anyway?Well, network sharding (which we will refer to in this article simply as sharding unless it is unclear from the context) is a mechanism that allows the Zilliqa network to be divided into smaller groups of nodes each referred to as a shard. Simply put, imagine a network of 1,000 nodes, then, one may divide the network into 10 shards each composed of 100 nodes.Network sharding is the secret sauce that makes Zilliqa truly scalable. Imagine our example network of 1,000 nodes. Zilliqa would automatically divide the network into 10 shards each with 100 nodes. Now, these shards can process transactions in parallel. If each shard is capable of processing 10 transactions per second, then all shards together can process 100 transactions per second. The ability to process transactions in parallel due to the sharded architecture ensures that the throughput in Zilliqa linearly increases with the size of the network.The idea of sharding is certainly not new, and in fact it can be traced back to the field of databases, where it is employed to improve performance, scalability and I/O bandwidth. The idea of sharding in the context of blockchains however was first put forth in an academic paper co-authored by Zilliqa team members in 2015.Eh! Is that it? Sounds so simple!While the key idea is simple, making it work in practice is not quite so. To understand the underlying challenges, let us first start with some of the key problems that we would like to solve to make sharding a reality:Sybil resistance. Since Zilliqa is a public blockchain platform, it is open to any person with a working computer. On one hand, for any public blockchain such as Zilliqa to work, it must have a sufficient number of nodes. But, on the other hand, by having a public blockchain, one also opens up to malicious nodes. By definition, malicious nodes will try to subvert the system by spanning multiple nodes and influence any majority-based decision making process. This is what is often referred to as sybil attacks.Shard creation. Let us assume for a while that the problem of sybil resistance is somehow solved. So, we have say 1,000 nodes in the network and now we wish to create 10 shards each having 100 nodes. How should we do it and who decides which node gets assigned to which shard? It certainly cannot be a node or a set of nodes controlled by say Zilliqa team members. This is because if the Zilliqa team ever became malicious (only hypothetically), then they could cluster all malicious nodes in a single shard and compromise the security of Zilliqa. By the way, in case you do not know who Zilliqa team members are, take a break and see the team composition. We will be waiting for you right here.[Actually right here!] Shard size. The question that we ask here is simple: Can we have a tiny shard, say composed of 10 nodes? Well the answer is of course no! Things cannot be that simple, can they? In fact, if the shard size is small, then it becomes easier to be taken control of by attackers. Moreover, since these shards run the rest of the Zilliqa protocol (such as consensus), we certainly do not want to have a tiny shard (potentially composed of only malicious nodes) making decisions on which transaction can be accepted or rejected.How does Zilliqa solve these issues?Below, we present the approach that Zilliqa takes to solve the above issues.Keeping sybils in check. There are several possible ways to make sybil attacks costly or difficult to mount. For instance, by asking nodes to deposit a considerably large sum of money (or tokens) as a collateral. Or by asking them to perform some computationally intensive task also known as proof-of-work (PoW). Zilliqa uses PoW. Every new node who wishes to join the Zilliqa network has to first perform a PoW. Existing nodes in the network validate the PoW and authorize the node to join the network. PoW serves as an entry ticket to the network. Only nodes holding valid tickets can join the network. PoW makes it hard for any real-world entity to span multiple nodes.Automated shard creation. The use of PoW in Zilliqa automatically provides a way to create shards. Zilliqa first elects a dedicated set of nodes called the directory service committee (or DS committee). The election is based on PoW. At regular intervals aka a DS-epoch, one of the members of the DS committee is pushed out and a new member is added (using a first-in-first-out policy). Hence, at any time the size of the DS committee is fixed.The new node that gets into the committee is the one that solves the PoW the fastest. Once the DS committee is elected, it initiates the sharding process. All the other nodes in the network now perform another PoW. This PoW is then validated by the DS committee. Depending on the PoW submission and some randomness, each node gets assigned to a specific shard. The last few bits of a PoW submission decide which shard the node will be assigned to.Choosing the right size. Choosing the right shard size is critical to the security of the system. Consider our example network of size 1000 of which 1/4 (i.e., 250) are malicious nodes and the remaining 3/4 are honest. Now, let us create a shard of different sizes and check the fraction of malicious nodes in it. Shard creation using PoW is equivalent to sampling a subset of nodes uniformly at random. This is because PoW submissions are generated using a hash function. The figure below shows the probability that at least 1/3 of the shard members are malicious as a function of shard size. Note that with our example shard size of 100, this probability is around 0.04. As we want to have an honest super-majority (later for consensus), a shard size of 100 is clearly insecure. The good news is that the probability decreases with the increase in shard size. Starting from 600 nodes, the probability drops to 1 in a million. For this reason, Zilliqa always considers a minimum shard size of 600.Probability that shard (of a given size) has at least 1/3 malicious nodes. Since we want to limit the number of malicious nodes, the smaller the probability is, the more secure Zilliqa will be. For shard size of 100, the probability is considerably high. In Zilliqa, we chose a shard size of 600 which yields a probability of 1 in a million.If you are curious to know how we derive the probability, take a look at the sharding paper.What does sharding bring to the table?As discussed at the beginning of the article, network sharding opens up avenues for parallel transaction processing — each shard should now be able to independently process transactions and hence yield high throughput. In fact, whenever a transaction reaches the network, it gets assigned to a specific shard. The assignment is determined by the first few bits of the sending address of the transaction. This is called transaction sharding.Sharding also allows to perform computations or run smart contracts in a very efficient manner. For instance, a subset of shards can act as mappers, the others as reducers and perform a map-reduce task very efficiently. This is also referred to as computational sharding.Closing remarksA shard can however still have malicious nodes in it. Recall that any malicious node (just as an honest node) can do PoW and join the network. It is crucial that despite the presence of these malicious nodes (in limited numbers), the shard must be able to agree on a new set of transactions and propose the next block.How Zilliqa builds a secure and efficient consensus protocol with this sharded architecture is the topic of the next piece of this series.Here’s how you can follow our progress — we would love to have you join our community of technology, financial services, and crypto enthusiasts!➤ Follow us on Twitter,➤ Subscribe to our Newsletter,➤ Subscribe to our Blog,➤ Ask us questions on SlackThe Zilliqa Design Story Piece by Piece: Part 1 (Network Sharding) was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 10. 16
Zilliqa Keynote at SGInnovate
Note: ➤ We’re now on Slack! Join our community, ask us questions, and get updated on the latest (and hopefully, greatest!)A huge thank you to everyone who turned up at SGInnovate for our first public keynote, which was hosted by Ethereum Singapore.Our CEO, Xinshu, and Head of Marketing, Christel, were on hand to share an overview of Zilliqa’s conception, narrative, and technology features.You may re-watch the entire keynote here ⬇︎https://medium.com/media/95dda6e5d63feb83016db00b2321d107/hrefOur presentation deck is now available for download on our Slack channel (#Announcements). Hop on over and speak to us today!Over the next few weeks, we will be sharing more posts about our technology, roadmap, and vision for the Zilliqa platform.Here’s how you can follow our progress — we would love to have you join our community of technology, financial services, and crypto enthusiasts!➤ Follow us on Twitter,➤ Subscribe to our Newsletter,➤ Subscribe to our Blog,➤ Ask us questions on SlackZilliqa Keynote at SGInnovate was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 10. 06
Zilliqa: Hello World!
Introducing Zilliqa: A next generation, high-throughput blockchain platformThe financial services industry has become a graveyard of Proof-of-Concepts (POC), with projects that never see the light of day. Amongst these POCs are cases where a blockchain need not be deployed, and there are others which have been hindered by existing blockchain protocols that do not scale.We decided to remove this hurdle by building a clean-slate protocol that could scale but without compromising resilience and security.Zilliqa is a new blockchain platform that is designed to scale in an open, permission-less distributed network securely.Scalability — The bottleneck for blockchainsOne of the most pressing problems facing blockchain platforms is their lack of scalability, i.e., the ability to handle a larger number of transactions per second as the network grows.It has been widely discussed that existing blockchains are not able to scale for the next generation of Internet-style applications. An often cited example is the 7–10 transactions/second (TX/s) available in Bitcoin and Ethereum today, and the demands of payment processing in centralised operators (e.g., VISA, MasterCard) for supporting thousands of TX/s.How does Zilliqa differ from existing protocols?Scalability. The core feature that makes Zilliqa scalable is sharding — dividing the network into several smaller component networks (called shards) capable of processing transactions in parallel.The Zilliqa team proposed the theory of sharding in a paper in 2015, and since then this protocol has been under research, refinement and active development.Thanks to the team’s work around sharding, the transaction rate in Zilliqa increases as the mining network expands.Zilliqa aims to rival traditional centralised payment methods such as VISA and MasterCard.In fact, with a network size of 10,000 nodes, Zilliqa will enable a throughput which matches that of VISA and MasterCard with much lower fees for the merchants.Data-flow Smart Contracts. Smart contracts allow applications to be built on top of the distributed ledger provided by the blockchain storage and consensus. However, today’s mainstream public blockchains are not suitable for running computation-intensive tasks, as any of the computation tasks would have to be repeated at all full nodes for validation. Albeit being secure, such a fully redundant programming model is prohibitively expensive for running large-scale computations.With scalability as the main goal of Zilliqa, we propose a new smart contract language that is not Turing-complete but scales much better for a multitude of applications that range from automated auctions, shared economy to financial modelling.The smart contract language in Zilliqa follows a dataflow programming style, where the program can be seen as a directed graph. Nodes in the graph represent computations, while arcs represent input/output. Dataflow programs are known to be inherently parallelizable and easy to reason about.We will be sharing more about our technology features in our next post on Medium.Our Internal Testnet Trial Run — 1,389 TX/s (4 shards, 2,400 nodes)A quick capture of results seen in our experiments conducted daily on our testnet. All nodes currently run on AWS EC2 instances.Our current internal testnet of 2,400 nodes can process 1,389 transactions per second. However, there are many more innovations and development milestones ahead of us that will enable further scalability and add many features to Zilliqa.We plan to release the source code and a public testnet of Zilliqa in December 2017. We believe that the public release of the Zilliqa protocol will enable development of scalable blockchain applications that will return enormous benefits to the users of Zilliqa and the applications built on it.The Team behind ZilliqaOur team at Zilliqa, led by our CEO, Xinshu Dong, is a diverse mix of deep tech practitioners, venture creators, and financial veterans. You may read more of the team’s bios at our website.Over the next few weeks, we will be sharing more details around our technology, roadmap, and ambitions for the Zilliqa platform.Here’s how you can follow our progress — we would love to have you join our community of technology , financial services, and crypto enthusiasts!➤ Follow us on Twitter,➤ Subscribe to our Newsletter,➤ Subscribe to our Blog,➤ Ask us questions on SlackZilliqa: Hello World! was originally published in Zilliqa — Official Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
17. 09. 29
|Transaction History||Market||Market||Transaction volume||Address|
|Huobi Global||ZIL/ETH||7.83||57,226,707.53||Short cut|
|Huobi Korea||ZIL/BTC||7.41||162,824.14||Short cut|
|Lykke Exchange||ZIL/ETH||11.53||0.00||Short cut|
|Radar Relay||ZIL/WETH||123.64||0.00||Short cut|
|ProBit Exchange||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|CoinExchange||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|coinone||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|Korbit||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|DDEX||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|CoinField||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|Cashierest||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|
|Iquant||To be provided later||To be provided later||To be provided later||Short cut|