Red Flags About Quarkchain That You Need To Know About
Quarkchain is a project making headlines across the blockchain community. However, this past week, an article appeared online highlighting some of the red flags within the Quarkchain project. That article was posted by Zebra Crossing on Steemit. It was titled,
“Quarkchain Red Flags – We Know Something You Don’t Know!”
The article was published just hours after the price of Quarkchain had surged 1200% (!) after being listed on major exchanges like Binance. Quarkchain’s token (QKC) was sold at $0.019 during the ICO. Within hours of being listed on Binance and other exchanges, the coin had risen to a price of $0.25. The coin rose as high as $0.34 before dropping 20% on June 6 into the $0.20 range.
Are there legitimate red flags about Quarkchain? Should you buy QKC tokens today? Or does Zebra Crossing legitimately know something about Quarkchain’s red flags that you don’t know? Keep reading to find out.
What Are Quarkchain’s Red Flags?
The article from Zebra Crossing mentions a number of serious problems with the Quarkchain project, including the lack of information in its whitepaper, a lack of a technical foundation, and hazy future goals. The article cites a number of different information sources, including admin answers from the official Quarkchain Telegram group and testing within the Quarkchain private testnet demo.
Here are some of the red flags mentioned in the article:
Quarkchain Is Using State Sharding, Which They Claim Is Better Than Zilliqa Transaction Sharding
Sharding is a blockchain technology that helps a platform to scale to accept more transactions per second. Quarkchain uses state sharding instead of Zilliqa transaction sharding. The project’s leaders claim state sharding is superior to Zilliqa sharding.
What’s The Difference Between The Two?
State sharding divides storage into pieces and lets different shards store different parts, which means every node is only responsible for hosting its own shard’s data instead of the complete blockchain state. That means each shard in state sharding systems does not have a complete global ledger.
With Zilliqa transaction sharding, meanwhile, each shard stores a complete global ledger. According to Zebra Crossing, state sharding is inherently less secure because,
“If one of the shard in state sharding is compromised, then the tokens stored in that shard might be lost forever and could not be recovered.”
Zebra Crossing calls this a “single shard takeover attack”. This type of attack is mentioned in the Ethereum FAQ. Transaction sharding, meanwhile, avoids this problem. Recovery is always possible because each shard stores a complete global ledger.
Zebra Crossing also claims he received no answer to his questions regarding state sharding, including whether or not state sharding will make the network unstable.
Ultimately, Zebra Crossing believes that Quarkchain’s claim of processing 1 million transactions per second with high security and uptime is unrealistic, and requests for more information regarding the sharding system have been ignored.
The Quarkchain Team Has Limited Blockchain Experience
Zebra Crossing claims the Quarkchain team consists of smart individuals with strong educational backgrounds. However, team members have limited experience with blockchain technology. Here’s how Zebra Crossing explains the issue:
“Do note the team from Quarkchain are comprised from Phd and Professors from the field of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, not from blockchain related field and has zero blockchain experience prior to this. It is questionable that the team can achieve what they claim of 1 m tps while still maintaining sufficient security and up time.”
Quarkchain Uses The PoW Consensus Protocol For An Unclear Reason
Zebra Crossing believes that Quarkchain’s use of the proof of work (PoW) consensus protocol is a bad idea, and he expresses concern about why the project isn’t using the more popular PBFT algorithm.
Zilliqa, for example, uses a hybrid PBFT + PoW consensus mechanism. Why is Quarkchain using an exclusively PoW mechanism? The reasoning is unclear.
No Minimum And Maximum Nodes Per Shard Means Reduced Security
Quarkchain has no minimum and maximum nodes per shard. Zebra Crossing claims this leads to security issues because shards with low node counts can be easily targeted by hackers. Hackers can compromise these shards and recover lost tokens.
Decentralized Apps and Smart Contract Issues
Zebra Crossing also believes Quarkchain will struggle with decentralized apps and smart contracts.
“A Dapps cannot run on all shards since each shard is like an island of itself,” explains Zebra Crossing, “With its own ledger and own smart contract execution independent of each other. The only bridge to connect other shards is via the root chain, but the root chain do not record transaction details and has no copy of the shard’s ledger and definitely will not process smart contract.”
Final Thoughts On Quarkchain’s Red Flags
Ultimately, Zebra Crossing sums up his article on Quarkchain’s red flags with the following statement:
“It is clear that what Quarkchain team try to accomplish is rather trivial. They don’t have the technical know how on how to make a robust and secured sharding blockchain. They have no idea how to handle the issues of state sharding. They don’t even realize that by increasing the number of shards, their actual TPS will reduce due to increasing cross-shard transactions as explained below in Cross-Shard Transactions.”
Even if the Quarkchain team can scale up to process 1 million transactions per second, Zebra Crossing believes it will be 1 million times more expensive than Ethereum because they’re essentially creating 1 million separate versions of Ethereum.
Obviously, not everybody agrees Quarkchain will be able to achieve its ambitious goals. You can view the entire article on Quarkchain’s purported red flags here.