Over the years, blockchain technology has transformed the financial domain where peer to peer transaction has enabled the ease of doing business although at a very infant stage whereby decentralization and transaction speed have not been improved. Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchain fall in this group. However, the transaction demand in the crypto world is bound to improve with most financial institution adopting blockchain technology. This is because to cover the worlds commerce just like VISA a TPS (transaction per second) of about 100,000+ is required.
To solve this problem of scalability and decentralization, Quarkchain with its innovative technology aims to improve both scalability and decentralization in the very supersonic level.

To achieve this, quarkchain aims to develop a reshardable two-layer blockchain architecture which will apply an flexible sharding blockchain as a the first layer and a root blockchain as the second layer that confirms the blocks from the blocks from the first layer.
Another feature that makes it outstanding more than other technology like Ziliqa and fusion is its assured security by market-driven collaborative mining as well as anti-central horizontal scalabity, efficient cross-shard transaction, simple account management as well as a efficient smart contract platform.

So in summary Quarkchain is at the centre of Decentralization, security and scalabilty triangle. What else can we ask for in the crypto-space if not the mouth-watering technology that quarkchain is offering.

[i][/i]Written by Coliba
colaka2@yahoo.com

conyema12:


Over the years, blockchain technology has transformed the financial domain where peer to peer transaction has enabled the ease of doing business although at a very infant stage whereby decentralization and transaction speed have not been improved. Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchain fall in this group. However, the transaction demand in the crypto world is bound to improve with most financial institution adopting blockchain technology. This is because to cover the worlds commerce just like VISA a TPS (transaction per second) of about 100,000+ is required.
To solve this problem of scalability and decentralization, Quarkchain with its innovative technology aims to improve both scalability and decentralization in the very supersonic level.

To achieve this, quarkchain aims to develop a reshardable two-layer blockchain architecture which will apply an flexible sharding blockchain as a the first layer and a root blockchain as the second layer that confirms the blocks from the blocks from the first layer.
Another feature that makes it outstanding more than other technology like Ziliqa and fusion is its assured security by market-driven collaborative mining as well as anti-central horizontal scalabity, efficient cross-shard transaction, simple account management as well as a efficient smart contract platform.

So in summary Quarkchain is at the centre of Decentralization, security and scalabilty triangle. What else can we ask for in the crypto-space if not the mouth-watering technology that quarkchain is offering.

[i][/i]Written by Coliba
colaka2@yahoo.com

5000 naira worth of this token will be how many token

Spartacuslastman:


5000 naira worth of this token will be how many token

1ETH is around 31000 token
So your 5k will be around 500 tokens

conyema12:

1ETH is around 31000 token So your 5k will be around 500 tokens

wen will it be available to buy

@OP i think you should read the bellow to understand the difference between Zil and Quark Copied From Zil telegram chat-
Between am a hodler of ZIL


"QuarkChain does put forth the idea of sharding as a scalability solution. There are certain similarities and dissimilarities between Zilliqa and QuarkChain.

At a high-level there are two layers of blockchains in QuarkChain. The bottom layer is a set of blockchains that are maintained by different shards. The top layer is a rootchain that keeps a record of block headers produced by different shards. This is very similar to the two-layer architecture in Zilliqa, where, shards produce micro-blocks in parallel, while the DS committee aggregates the headers produced by different shards and gives a global state of the system through final blocks.

The first difference between the two projects is the underlying consensus protocol: Zilliqa uses PBFT, while QuarkChain uses PoW. PBFT gives finality while PoW requires confirmations.

Generally speaking, there are certain details that are not available in the whitepaper and hence it is difficult for us to compare the two projects at a deeper level. For instance, the whitepaper does not explain the exact mechanism to create shards. The paper does discuss about building an incentive mechanism to ensure that the total hash power gets divided among the shards in a fair manner. However, the paper also mentions that two shards may have different difficulties. It is unclear how nodes can be assigned to shards and guarantee security in each shard if the difficulty can vary across shards.

Zilliqa on the other hand uses random sampling to ensure that the percentage of malicious nodes within each shard is less than ⅓. We feel that it is a much cleaner way to build shards.

Points made by @Krishislegend

Quarkchain uses PoW for consensus. Actually, the white paper is pretty vague on many number of topics.

a) "Root Chain will be having 50 % difficulty and does not process any transaction, rather it provides confirmation for the transactions done by the shard. If it does that, what is
the incentive for the miners to point to the root chain. The incentive structure is not clearly defined.

b) Number of shards - How does the number of shards are selected, how many nodes will be there in the number of shards ? As per the whitepaper, each shards will have its own difficulty
and reward mechanism. How is it defined? so it means miners can switch over between the different shards depending on mining difficulty and can try to get maximum rewards? how is this mitigated?
Is there any sort of EDA or there is limitation for miners switching between shards ? How is this more decentralized than normal PoW solution ?

c) Clustering - It is a good idea where the "honest nodes" are clustered to run as a super node and will involve the root chain to confirm the transactions between them. There will be incentive
for the nodes to form clustering. How does this "Honest nodes" are selected for clustering or is it something which the nodes can do themselves ? if they can do themselves? what prevents the
malicious miners to collude and form a cluster of their own? how is this mitigated ?

d) Cross Shard communication - There are no details of how cross shard communication happens. If smart contract is executed by one shard, what prevents the another shard to execute the smart
contract? What is the overhead of performing cross shard communication? How is it acheived?

e) Forking - Since this a PoW Chain, the transactions does not have finality. How does the double spend is mitigated, if you are clustering the nodes, how will they know which chain is the original one?"