Topic: Question: Hashgraph (Read 475 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.

Me not thinks HashGraph is like IOTA because that only does 100 TPS and HashGraph is more
like 50,000 TPS or something

Evo is one worth studying and has some very interesting concepts but the killer is that
it's based in China and the gas it uses as a currency can only be traded on one exchange 


Still trying to defend seven transactions per second are we with $30 Tx fees and the "Lightning Network"
to the rescue debate is in full swing and it's funny but this "open-source project maintained by volunteers and community"
is not listening to us developers and they knew eight years ago that Bitcoin would not scale which is very "suspicious" and yes the Bitcoin
network never has bugs if we blame everyone else when coins get lost in translation.

Did you know there are people in this world that can create block-chains that does scale and everything can stay on block
and are mining pools centralization anyway or maybe your happy with the monopoly too.

Is this the correct thread for this topic ? I will give my 5 cents anyway

My understanding of hashgraph is that it will use timestamped "blocks", not really blocks but lets use that for this explanation.
When a node gets a transaction it will tell a few other nodes about the transaction, those nodes in turn would do this too and so on it will propogate throughout the network. Each node tells the other one about it with a timestamp attached. This timestamp is a basis for a transaction to be valid. When a certain amount of time is passed then  that gets set as the "block". This is my understanding of how it works in a basic form.

This uses a legacy protocol called gossip protocol, this was developed in the 1960's or something. It was never really used much. Which brings up concern number one for me, if this legacy protocol is the base of hashgraph then how do we know it has been stress tested and battlehardened. Even today we find exploits with TCP/IP. TCP/IP is the basis for the internet and networks as we know them today.
Let's face it, programmers today know a lot more than the original creators did in those days, applications and protocols are developed with security in mind.

Then onto the way transactions are advertised. This sounds very similar to some more legacy networking technologies (Such as RIP routing protocol), I am unsure of what kind of loop prevention they have. From what I have read about it I don't  see a fool proof loop prevention mechanism in it, I can think that if I recieve a gossip packet  from someone else I can just modify the timestamp in the header before passing it on in my node (this might screw with the whole system). As the network grows the bandwidth requirements will probably start getting quite large which means it wont  be usable on mobiles.
I didn't research this extensively though, so this point might be mute. But the bandwidth requirement will go up as the network scales. Which I think is a bit of a problem, there should be a set limit as to how many confirmations are needed for a transaction to limit the bandwidth requirements.

My biggest problem with this, like others have stated is the fact that this is patented and  developed by one company. I'm sure it will have some uses, but I dont see this replacing blockchain. Blockchain is starting to become really cool, modern blockchain 3.0 products really lay the ground for mass disruption and previously unthinkable innovation. I don't see hashgraph bringing such extensive scalable smart contract technology to the table.
If it's not open source then that means we can't see the code, that means we need to trust the entity who created it. With BTC and others the code is there for anyone to read and check, meaning we don't need to trust anyone, which is the beauty of blockchain.

And the fact that all those "innovative" projects that are promising to disrupt Bitcoin and blockchain are spending a lot of resources on marketing while having very little codebase makes them extremely suspicious. This is the exact opposite of Bitcoin - free, non-profit and open-source project maintained by volunteers and community with no central authorities.

I believe it's a similar to IOTA's tangle, it has no blocks, and I believe it suffers from similar game theoretical exploits that could lead to lack of security compared to proof of work, but the biggest concern is the fact that it's closed source, which makes it have 0 value as far as im concerned. No way it poses real competition for Bitcoin.

Hi, guys

Today, I read an article about Hashgraph. In short, this technology is developing in parallel with blockchain.  I don't fully understand the technical part. They are very similar, but hashgraph faster than blockchain. So I have a question, what is the fundamental difference? And whether hashgraph to be a murderer blockchain?