What are the major downsides to investing in ZIL?
>No public mainnet or testnet yet
>Centralized somewhat because Tx sharding requires Directory Dervice nodes
I'm considering going balls deep in this, because with a high-throughput blockchain, this could be a top-5 blockchain, as it serves a different purpose than ETH.
you are retarded
so is it going to be like an eos, neo, or ether? What does it do besides fast transactions? Scaling will be a commodity in the future so invest in the company not buzzwords. Also, it moon from half a penny to where it is now...keep that in mind.
what "different purpose" does it serve compared to ETH?
Much higher throughput
What does it do other than muh sharding? Wouldn't want to hold this meme if the market started going down.
ETH implementing sharding
ETH implementing sharding
ETH will have sidechains and childchains
ZIL will die unfortunately.
Please tell me why I'm wrong.
But yeah, purpose is basically the same not sure what OP means.
OP is beyond retarded
Also
Eth implementing Plasma.
ZIL has a working implementation of sharding, the rest don't.
Eth implementing OP is retarded
Zilliqa sounds like a skin cream, or maybe some kind of shampoo. That on its own guarantees that this project is doomed.
this doesn't matter, ETH has the projects and dapps already, it'll catch up with the sharding before it becomes an issue.
It's an ERC20 token. Mainnet planned for Q3.
State sharding and what Zilliqa implented is fundamentally different. ZIL sharding allows for instant confirmations because all 600+ nodes in the mini-block are in agreement, which is then written into the main chain. State sharding is different, where hash power is split up, but concencus is still pretty much the same.
Ethereum's state sharding is different. They serve different functions because ETH is a platform while ZIL will be payment-focused.
In terms of sharding and scalability, Zilliqa will have their mainnet before ETH puts through even a testnet with sharding. These things take time, ZIL will have first mover advantage in terms of being high throughput.
Um...Google? Sounds like noodle. Look what happened there? Come on don't be so naive.
Working product, as in, its already developed (code is on github) and they have a testnet.
Listed on DeadCoins.com for a reason
Sir please dump ZIL to 500 sats please sir
There is no point being the first coin with sharding if it has no developers developing dApps on it, ETH has the lion share of the dApp market and will have plasma ready by this year to mitigate the scalability issues and Vitalik already said they are working on sharding. Being a developer you will always pick ETH over ZIL because it has been here the longest and has numerous documentation to develop on it, not even counting the ease of use such as IDEX, metamask, etc.
>Developing a blockchain app
>I need high tx throughput for the app
>Pick a platform that doesn't offer high throughput because its more popular
Yeah... that makes sense.
The point is, high throughput is necessary for the next generation of applications and real world uses of decentralized tech.
After 2019 will it really matter when ETH has sharding and plasma? That next generation can just wait and use the better option, which is and will always be ETH.
Technology "waits"... lol
> bought up at ICO by select bankers
> still trading at x14 ICO price
> crypto is oversaturated with high throughput solutions
I would have gone balls deep into ZIL if it was
It may be saturated with high throughput solutions but when you look at it closely, most of them are either vaporware or have one of the following issues:
>utilizes side chains
>has elements which are not truly decentralized and secure
>doesn't scale linearly
Its a problem that everyone is trying to solve, just not everyone has the correct solution.
Zilliqa is the most mature "Ethereum killer", but the public doesn't and will never understand tech. With NEO still a thing one year after it should be obvious it's vaporware, and Eos and Cardano having much bigger warchests, gaining a mindshare foothold on tech alone is going to be an uphill battle
>utilizes side chains
Nothin bad about side chains, but that is not a scaling problem at all. Side chains are a great solution to the flexibility problem.
>has elements which are not truly decentralized and secure
Decentralisation might be just a buzz word and our kids might be laughing at us for thinking it is valuable. So nothing intrinsically bad here.
> doesn't scale linearly
A no-problem completely at this state of crypto.
You want scaling to be a problem, go kill all those competing projects. But rn you are free to choose whichever coin you like to make a transaction with.
Pre-sale requirements was $250k USD minimum. It was bought up by whales, but many of them haven't dumped yet, otherwise it wouldn't still be demanding this premium.
If we do see another 60% drop, that would put ZIL at ~1.8cents/ZIL. It looks like at the current BTC prices, it's pretty bottomed out.
LMAO if you don't think centralization is a problem why the fuck are you in crypto then? Just get an AWS that does everything.
I meant to say off-chain.
>Decentralisation might be just a buzz word and our kids might be laughing at us for thinking it is valuable
What exactly do you think crypto even is? De-centralization is the whole point.
>A no-problem completely at this state of crypto
Scaling is not a problem, wut?
>why the fuck are you in crypto then
Cos I wanna make $
I don't give a shit about decentralisation. If I could monetise raping children, I'd do that, but so far I can only monetise this decentralisation hype of yours.
>What exactly do you think crypto even is?
Yet another speculation tool
> wut?
Crypto is not yet mainstream, so creating and sustaining a system that can bank twice the planet population is pointless