Dear community,
Dimitar (our leading developer for HC) took a short vacation, so we don’t have any meaningful updates on the node front.
We’ve added the “observed validators history” view on the UI, where you can see how stake&balance changes over time. Now we’re working on the ability to stake and unstake
I am very interested in HC recently. Although I am not an engineer in blockchain, I still want to continue to share my thoughts:
Assuming that AE is linked to BTC through HC, and the leader election is achieved by bidding on AE, who should bear the tip of the transfer on BTC? This confuses me.
If the leader election is done by bidding for BTC, then tipping is no longer an issue, because if you want to be a leader, you have to have plenty of BTC, but that seems to make the parent chain more valuable.
The leaders would need to pay for the BTC transaction. They would also be required to run a BTC node additionally. They receive AE as part of the block reward and tx-fees for doing this work.
Dear community,
we’re wrapping up an interface for staking via demo UI. We’ll release it by the end of the week.
how to use？
Dear community, we’re working on utilities around the demo UI needed to complete staking functionality.
We need to update wallet provider to support new protocol version dedicated tHC implementation.
Next in line is the Faucet.
Thank you for your patience!
any update？
Dear community, after a long wait, I’m happy to share our updates.
You can access HC Alpha nodes via a new url: https://testnet-hc.aeternity.io/v2/status
HC-specific Base app wallet was deployed under: https://base-hc.dev.aepps.com/
before creating a new account, make sure you’re connected to propper network:
To top up your account, you can use a new faucet: https://dev-faucet-hc.aepps.com/ The limit is 30AE daily.
The new version of Demo UI allows staking: https://hc-alpha.aepps.com/staking
Feel free to play around and let us know if you have any issues.
Thank you for waiting!
Super! Super!
We’ve hit a consensus bug in the HyperChains’ testnet. This is exactly the reason we have this testnet in the first place 
it is really important catching those on testnets. For the time being, the network is paused: we need it in order to be able to debug the problem. We will keep you up to date.
Hi, I recently learned that the stacks blockchain is also doing research on hyperchains, and their purpose seems to be to layer the network through hyperchains to increase transaction speed.
Is this the same technical route as ae’s hyperchain? Can the two parties conduct technical exchanges to optimize technical functions?
Dear community,
We identified recent bug in the testnet, and we’re planning a new release with the fix.
We have started working on parent chain connectors, which will be our main focus in the upcoming weeks.
Hi, I have a new question. If the parent chain forks or the parent chain goes offline, what will be the impact on the child chain? After all, it’s all possible.
Looking forward to the developer’s answer, thank you
Or the parent chain delays producing blocks
Any forks on the parent chain propagate to the child chain. Anytime the parent chain is stuck, so is the election cycle on the child chain. This is a direct result of the parent chain being the source of truth regarding serialization of commitments and source of entropy. There are some assumptions to be made regarding the parent chain (like - it is stable, not prone to attacks and so on) that the child chain uses to derive its own security. If the parent chain fails - the child chain can not elect the next leader and the current leader remains such until the parent chain issue is resolved. Since we are using BitcoinNG, microblocks would still be produced so the child chain will not be stuck but rather centralized for the time being. This could be solved by providing some voting on the child chain but currently this is not a priority. A great question, though
Thanks for the reply, I got the answer I was looking for.
At present, I am learning about the knowledge of blockchain. I think the development of smart contracts is a very interesting thing, and I hope to make some contributions to the development of the AE ecosystem in the future. 
Can you elaborate on what the bug was and how it’s being fixed? 
It was a smart contract bug.
There is a recouring metafor for staking: everyone involved gets a lottary ticket, the more tickets you have - the higher chance you get to get elected as a leader. The bug was a corruption of the ticket’s space. Meanwhile we fixed a few more bugs and developed testing framework to test edge cases. We are now closing known issues in the contract itself - like the validator can withdraw his stake and continue being a validator (having only delegated staking power). Once those are fixed, we will fire back the HC test network.
希望可以及早的看到超链！！！期待
Hi, I have a new confusion, I hope someone can help me answer it, thank you:
For the POS chain, since it is easy to forge the ledger, assuming that the perpetrator controls a block, and then starts from this block, forging a chain longer than the main chain (even if the pledged coins will be confiscated), then the newly added node , it is impossible to determine which is the real chain.
So for hyperchains, does this problem still exist? Suppose I completely control a certain block of the child chain, and then submit different information to the parent chain twice, which makes the child chain fork, and then keep synchronizing with the parent chain on the fake chain.
In this way, even if it is discovered, it does not seem to be able to change anything. After all, it does not need to consume computing power, and the cost of maintaining synchronization with the parent chain is relatively low.
Writing the history of the child chain to the parent chain is an excellent idea in my opinion, but I’m not sure if the above problem exists, and if so, there will be a different history of the child chain on the parent chain.