Quote from: Tony Cui@Achain on November 24, 2017, 06:22:13 AM

Quote from: Gordan101 on November 24, 2017, 05:24:18 AM

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!