Question for Max / Lisk Devs -
I'm sure you guys are familiar with NXT 2.0 design proposal and how it solves the blockchain scalability problem.
From what i understand of the lisk technical design, it is very similar to NXT's sidechain solution but with a turing complete layer and a slightly different consensus model - DPOS instead of POS.
Now my question is this - Does this mean that all the advantages of NXT 2.0 when it comes to scalability and blockchain bloat are also applicable to Lisk?
Is Lisk a NXT 2.0 inspired, Ethereum alternative with Bitshares' consensus model?
Honestly, I'm not all that familiar with Nxt 2.0. Main reason is, because there is no summary or white paper. I won't read over dozens of pages in a forum to know what it is.
I just know that there is something going on with child chains, fNXT and so on. I think it's a bad idea to split the coins, but due to my limited knowledge about it I can't make a profound statement.
It would be great if you can give me a short summary.
Lisk is definitely Nxt inspired, but not Nxt 2.0. We are also inspired by BitShare's DPoS. From Ethereum we took no ideas as far as I can see.
Thanks.
I'm not that familiar with the low level details of the NXT 2.0 design either. However, i guess i have been reading up on the discussion so brieflly -
NXT 2.0
- Allows many independent blockchain initiatives / blockchain businesses to hook onto NXT's main "forging" chain. This allows new blockchain businesses to pay fees to the forging network (meta layer) and in return gain the security and infrastructure of the nodes that make up the NXT forging network. I find this very similar to Lisk's main chain and side chain relationship.
- The NXT 2.0 design keeps blockchain bloat to negligible levels by only storing a hash of the child chain states which secures the child chains without bloating up the main network. Child chains don't need to store all their tx history to be cryptographically secure. Is Lisk also similar?
- NXT 2.0 allows for much higher tps and blockchain scalability since child chain blocks are generated on demand and not in a periodic interval.
- NXT 2.0 allows all child chains to have their own native token and charge fees for child chain operations in their own native token.
There are more specifics but i think in general there are some parallels between Lisk and NXT 2.0 but now that i dive deeper, i see the differentiation here since in Lisk each child chain will be a dapp and in NXT it could be a blockchain business / token / currency. But hey, these lines of differentiation can easily get blurry.
I know you are obviously very busy these days but you should check out all the details outlined by Jean Luc in this first post in the NXT 2.0 design thread. It might even help with Lisk's future design / architecture -
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/