0

From Zilliqa what I get is they have temporary transactions done in parallel in different shards then merged into a main chain.

What's the difference between the latest sharding specification for Ethereum vs Ziliqa's sharding design?

0

This question is extremely broad. Why don't you take the time to read these two sharding designs and post your findings?

Ziliqa uses proof of work. Ethereum 2.0 uses Casper Proof of Stake, see https://notes.ethereum.org/SCIg8AH5SA-O4C1G1LYZHQ# for the latest spec. The main, most unique, contribution that Ziliqa offers, IMO, is that it uses a dataflow programming language for smart contracts. Although the other design features more or less seem to be borrowed from elsewhere.

See also https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Alternative-blockchains,-randomness,-economics,-and-other-research-topics#ziliqa.

Ziliqa: a PoW sharded architecture consisting of a dataflow smart contract layer, and 5 other layers. Uses the EC-Schnorr multiginature signature scheme. However, RANDAO is preferable to aggregate/multisignature schemes since it is not prone to a 51% attack. Also uses committees, as is planned with Dfinity and Ethereum, although here the committees manage how miners are assigned to shards, whereas in Ethereum that is the task of the beacon chain and the sharding manager contract on the main chain. Uses PBFT consensus, which doesn't seem to be as good as Casper FFG, which is also used with PoW.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.