Topic: Question: Hashgraph (Read 457 times)

There are differences in the implementations.
This article compares IOTA and Raiblocks (now Nano)
https://medium.com/@peterryszkiewicz/iota-vs-raiblocks-413679bb4c3e


Although they're all DAGs their consensus algorithms are different: Byteball is a "main chain" DAG, IOTA works with POW, and Raiblocks/Nano is a modified version of dPoS.

Thanks. That was a very good article. However, I am not deeply skilled at the level of math or programming needed to know if there are differences between different DAG models (i.e. is there a difference and the same limitations between IOTA, Byteball, or Nano, for example). Any thoughts?

This is a good article on the matter comparing scaling Blockchains and scaling DAGs.
https://medium.com/@lyaffe/scaling-a-blockchain-vs-scaling-a-tangle-8b7182eda980
DAGs have their own drawbacks with respect to DDOS and transaction propagation latency during high load periods.

Does anyone have a good understanding of the benefits / drawbacks of DAG based systems v all the hype going on around HashGraph? For example, Nano (formerly RaiBlocks) is DAG and says its infinitely scaleable. Other than the fact that the hashgraph is controlled by an private entity (which in itself makes it a non starter for me). Specifically from a scaleability, speed, or security, and privacy perspective.

SDK is on the website hashgraph.


It is important that this distributed ledger. The idea is to eliminate the middlemen and to exclude the governing body.

They are totally different, are not they? Blckchain vs hashgraph. They are both a means for distributed ledger, but technically are different. Besides them, there is also a structure, naming DAG. Both DAG and hashgraph are blockless technology.

Would it had been 80 TPS if they had 8 users and how many nodes were under test ?

They need to be looking at the network doing 50,000 TPS which VISA can just about do
but they won't be fast if only a few users are making payments so maybe we are not
comparing apples with apples and they can chuck it in the bin of they are.

Open source does not automatically mean everyone can/should become developer. Open source mean everyone can read and assert capability of the project and tech behind it, then use this tech in accordance with their knowledge and understanding.

It may seem that closed source solution is working fine from outside, but under the hood it can be a mess of poorly written code, a disaster waiting to happen as soon as it crawls out of it's baby crib.

Big companies can effectively do damage control if things go south with Windows or iOS or other big apps, but a team of few enthusiasts won't be able to do anything  (they simply won't have resources) if this ship start to sink.

How exactly did you test it?
IIRC it's closed source and you need a licence from Swirlds to run it.

Tested hashgraph for 4 users. 40 transactions per second, given that they are empty. Pretty bad result. Until more like mysticism... imho

Fees on Bitcoin has been a game changer and "Of Block" in LN is another one given that others can support a public ledger and also scale.

Open source does not mean you can have your say because i tried that one with Firefox developers with all the google back doors
in the code and project leader Mr J Poon for Lightning won't even answer emails or pass the message on so another developer can
deal with it.

Here is my contribution to Bitcoin "Open Source" Software but i am sure it will create a bug 

public static money MaxFee=1.50// Too many miners (20,000) competing with each other, time some of them left, we only need 1,000 at most

Nice to meet people who are not just playing the slot machine but I admit I am bias towards NEO because it's windows based
I thinks and trying to convert between data types used in Bitcoin that is more Linux based is a pain the bum and us poor windows
developers end up having to jump though windows backwards to get things to work or use mega big wrappers around C++
code to work.

I think this video helps shed some light  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrFrXFdRW4k

Yeah... closed source is game-ender for something that seeks widespread adoption concurrent with Bitcoin. It can either be closed source supported by entity like Apple or Microsoft or open-source.

Hashgraph is a closed source and patented non-public centralized ledger built for businesses.
"Please note we are not a public ledger. Hashgraph was built to be deployed in businesses - not to act as a cryptocurrency."
- Hashgraph team

Not worth talking about IMO.
There's no point in comparing it to a public ledger like Bitcoin.
Apples and oranges.

EOS and Cardano  scale into hundreds of thousands per second. IOTA is just "slow at 100tps" because it scales with the size of the network, which isn't big now. But should IOTA make good on their promises and become the payment system for all things IOT, we would easily see millions of transactions per second.  (I think Cardano also falls into that category)

Regarding how it replicates data,as I understand it its  kind of like Anycast traffic (you can can google that) where it is "one to closest".  But this replication is just a transaction as far as I know, then follows a round of pseudo voting. The timestamps are sort of like blocks.  I don't  think that all transactions are held in a database by all nodes in the hashgraph network though.

Modern blockchain projects still beat this hashgraph by far, but they are aiming at selling solutions to business. This means its meant for an entirely different use case and it is an entirely different technology.

Its cool that it exists, I am sure Swirls will do well with their product, but it wont replace BTC, its different things. Its like comparing Visa transactions to a home loan - different things.

Note: Bitcoin block chain is replicated

That's a mentally high number so i get how the word gets around (Gossip about gossip) but how the hell
do they get nodes to record and store this information in what must be a distributed block-chain split between
nodes and know how to put it back together to find anything.




   

it requires too much bathwidth and not even close to blockchain but considering Quantum attack in future, it might be handy but still in theory only

"Each node in Hashgraph can disseminate sealed information (called events) about transactions created and transactions received from others, to other nodes chosen at random, these nodes will add the received events with the information received from other nodes in a new event, and then They will send to other nodes chosen at random, this process continues until all the nodes know the information created or received at the beginning, and the new information can reach each node of the network in a very fast way.

Fast: 250,000 transactions per second. (7 transactions / second in BItcoin)
More just: Better mathematical configuration (with 2/3 of the network the transaction is validated). For example, a miner could NOT decide which transaction to "make" before due to the higher fee payment.
More secure: It is asynchronous. Nobody can avoid reaching a consensus or trying to interrupt one that has already been reached.
Efficient: No new block can become obsolete.
Less storage: Allows if an event occurs, everyone knows it in minutes, and only the transaction is saved, everything else goes straight to the trash.
Less electricity costs: As they do not rely on PoW (work proof), there are no miners nor would that amount of electricity be consumed. "

This is a bit of the information I found about it.

That got extended and now its "gossip about gossip" and I am told that they are testing the thing
to destruction and i think this is the one that uses a type of stream to store blocks but it goes
over my head

Academia has taken over much too much these days and they invent problems that don't really
exist or they create them and then try to mitigate them and the 51% attack on Bitcoin is one
good example of this happen.