The Blockchain Killer? An Introduction to Hashgraph

Featuring Leemon Baird

Conventional wisdom has it that bitcoin’s underlying technology, called the blockchain, will revolutionize electronic commerce, banking, and financial transfers. But is it possible that a different technology, called hashgraph, will actually be at the center of the coming revolution? Leemon Baird, the computer scientist and serial entrepreneur behind hashgraph, explains what the technology is, how it differs from blockchain, and how it could change the world. Filmed January 22nd, 2018 in Dallas.

Published on
7 February, 2018
Topic
Macro, Technology, Crypto-currencies
Duration
31 minutes
Asset class
Crypto-currencies
Rating
83

Comments

  • @.

    @Steve ..

    26 3 2018 21:25

    1       0

    Dudes amazing at explaining use cases for very complex concepts.

  • @.

    @Steve ..

    26 3 2018 21:15

    0       0

    Sales pitch, everyone . It's a sales pitch.

  • JB

    Jamie B.

    26 3 2018 08:26

    0       0

    Isn't he explaining exactly what blockchain is going to be anyway?

  • JQ

    Joseph Q.

    20 3 2018 17:40

    0       0

    Not Fair to compare to Bitcoin Or Ethereum. It’s not open sourced. More akin to JPM Quorum. Think the author or video should make that difference

  • DG

    Drew G.

    20 3 2018 02:06

    0       0

    If it is better than Bitcoin and blockchain time will tell. All I am going to say is how defensive he got when bringing up blockchain and bitcoin and how negative he got. His tone and body language showed he had animosity towards it which my first gut reaction is he would be appreciative of it, not against it. If and when bitcoin and blockchain become mainstream and hashgraph is better and is proven to be better it will be an easy transition over from the blockchain. As of now there is still lots of people who either do not know what blockchain and bitcoin are or do not trust it. Still a long ways away until mass adoption and part of everyday life, but we will be there soon enough.

  • SG

    Siran G.

    6 3 2018 04:49

    1       0

    Why is Realvision providing a platform for scammers? Please do your research before brining these people in. RV obviously has access to credible people in the crypto space (eg. Tuur Demeester), check with them before you ask a barber if you need a haircut.

  • EM

    Ewan M.

    2 3 2018 14:22

    0       0

    Check out Nano, its open source, huge community, free to use, fee-less, miner-less, instant transactions. Works similar to Hashgraph, it uses a block-lattice where each user updates their own blockchain entries. The crypto revolution doesn't occur in a closed system out of your control like Hashgraph. This is yet another Bankcoin like Ripple.

    • PG

      Petter G.

      2 3 2018 21:03

      2       0

      Stop promoting other coins please. Don't turn these comment sections into an alternate version of "crypto Twitter".

  • AL

    Adrian L.

    16 2 2018 17:15

    0       0

    Thx for the Video. Very interesting - pls more tech content like this

  • SG

    Steve G.

    15 2 2018 01:35

    0       4

    30 minutes on how ledgers work in two different systems. great .

  • JM

    Justin M.

    14 2 2018 17:30

    2       6

    This idea sounds interesting and Leemon baird is clearly brilliant, but he needs to work on a clean "elevator pitch" so to speak. The underlying technology may be revolutionary, but if it can't be communicated in a simple way that clearly differentiates hashgraph from blockchain to the general public, then it will have difficulty in gaining traction. Steve Jobs talent was that he was able to translate computer geek into a clean simple system that just works for the masses.

    • DR

      David R.

      19 2 2018 22:50

      0       0

      Apple = form over function. Looking forward to the coming demise of it and Silicon Valley at the hands of the Chinese in Shenzhen, just like how the Japanese obliterated US color TV & electronics half a century ago to the shock of the complacent naysayers.

  • ag

    anthony g.

    13 2 2018 18:12

    0       1

    Hmmmmm...... my first gut level uneducated reaction is he sounds a bit naive ? Then again ... perhaps he is on to something. Opens up a debate which is good though.

  • RA

    Robert A.

    13 2 2018 00:01

    0       0

    Do I hear an Amen?....give me an Amen. Clearly beyond my capabilities, but I like hearing it first....thanks Milton for the curation. Sounds logical and would have a plethora of uses, but I’ll have to leave it to others more talented than myself to work out the details. Kinds of reminds me of the line from Cheryl Crow’s song.....”I’ve never been there, but the brochure sure looks nice”.

  • KB

    Kirk B.

    12 2 2018 01:24

    4       1

    Interesting, although I feel like I just watched an infomercial. All that was missing was the 1-800 number at the end.

  • CM

    Carl M.

    9 2 2018 14:57

    3       0

    I'm not sure, but I think he is on to something....
    Seriously though, I appreciate this simplified introduction as well as the comments / debates.

  • jd

    john d.

    9 2 2018 06:43

    10       0

    I enjoyed that and now, when I start to hear "hashgraph" in later months at least I will be able to say "yeah, I knew about that months ago, mate .."

    However ...

    First Bitcoin was going to revolutionize how we transacted peer-to-peer without Government oversight...

    Then when >1,000 other ICO's emerged it was, "yeah, nah ... it's not bitcoin ... it's all about the blockchain. That's the technology."

    Now it's "forget about blockchain that is flawed. Hashgraph will kill it."

    For a mid-40's guy like me who is relatively IT illiterate, I'll stick to a barbarous relic that feels heavy in my hand and has survived thousands of years of technological innovation, multiple societal ideologies and the rise and fall of civilisations to protect my wealth.

    But good luck. I loved the enthusiasm expressed.

    Cheers
    John

  • JN

    Jack N.

    8 2 2018 22:03

    2       17

    I think he should bring up more pie in the sky techo-utopian gobbly gook and rapid fire delivery...wait...that's what he did do. Forget it.

  • CA

    Chris A.

    8 2 2018 18:16

    6       1

    He mentioned that it works "as long as less than 1/3 of the nodes" attack. Yet, as he described it, it seems trivial to create a node. Maybe there are some great use cases here, in centralized systems, but this doesn't seem anywhere near secure enough to support a "currency" or as a bitcoin replacement. Did I misunderstand?

    • PG

      Petter G.

      8 2 2018 18:28

      8       1

      Nope, you are spot on. People massively underestimate the importance of security and censorship resistance when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Creating a fast and low-cost cryptocurrency is not difficult. Creating a secure and censorship resistant one is. If money is on the line, and there is a trust issue in the system, be sure that the trust issue WILL be exploited at some point. And since hashgraph only works in a permissioned enviroment you would not be able to trust it in an open setting. This means it won't compete with Bitcoin.

    • MR

      Marten R.

      9 2 2018 06:54

      2       0

      Chris, I think you picked up on some of the words, but didn't totally understand what Leemon was trying to say. Hashgraph is the-most secure distributed ledger technology. Relatively more secure therefore, than others on the market which use proof or work or proof of stake.
      If a certain proportion of bad actors collude (lets say 1/3) then it is 'possible' to mount some sort of attack. But it is the type of attack which also matters. DDOS - not possible. Firewall - not possible.
      So whilst attack is possible, the type of security risk is very important and the probability of success also matters.
      Petter - your interpretation of hash graph only working on a permissioned network is not accurate I don't think. There are plenty of online resources which explain this technology including the white paper and some online lectures which Leemon (and others) present the technology in different ways and conduct Q&A sessions: https://hashgraph.com - start here...
      MR

    • PG

      Petter G.

      9 2 2018 17:47

      4       0

      Marten - I just read through this document:

      http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf

      In the document it is stated that you can choose among several different consensus algorithms in Swirlds:

      - Proof of Stake
      - Proof of Burn
      - Proof of Work
      - Permissioned
      - Hybrid
      - Trivial

      The first 3 options are no different than what current cryptocurrencies use. So nothing new there. Out of the 3 remaining options only "Permissioned" and "Hybrid" are resistant to sybil attacks (the risk of someone trying to trick the system into thinking he/she is more than one person/node in order to get more votes in the system). In a permissioned system only a pre-determined set of participants can join. In a hybrid system a group of "founders" can decide to invite more people to the system. These new members can in turn decide to invite even more participats (to whom the invitee shares his/her votes). So even though the hybrid system is somewhat open, it is not permissionless. You need to get an invite from someone in order to join.

      I obviously can't say that Hashgraph will never succeed in some way, but it is definately not built on the same open and permissionless innovation principles that are the foundation of Bitcoin. The fact that Hashgraph is closed source software built by a private company (afaik) is a huge red flag to me.

    • MR

      Marten R.

      10 2 2018 03:02

      2       0

      Petter,
      Thank you for the follow up.
      This is an interesting discussion.
      The distinction between hashgraph and other DLT is crucial.
      For the whole audience here is the link to the paper to which Petter refers: http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf
      I think that there is confusion regarding the consensus algorithm and the method by which a member of the network gets a voting stake.
      The consensus algorithm, is hashgraph, within which we have the gossip about gossip and deemed voting breakthroughs/ innovations.
      On top of this 'platform', app developers can build stuff.
      It is they, who determine how a 'member' obtains voting rights.
      Quote "Of course, an app developer could choose to do something more complicated. The swirld could start with the hybrid model, then allow users to sell voting stake to each other. Or it might be permissioned, but with the permissioning done within the swirld itself, by having an actual election, with the humans talking with each other prior to voting. Or it might start with proof-of- burn, and automatically transition to proof-of-stake once the total value gets large enough. In all cases, the consensus is always decided by the platform, using the current record of voting stake, as managed by the app."
      So, for convenience, within the paper you rightly point out that Leemon refers to other DLT and voting rights methodologies, however it is not an exclusive list.
      There is more discussion in 'Section 2: An Example Scenario', which I would encourage everyone to read (the whole paper is only 2 pages).
      It's important to think in relative terms here.
      Hash graph is not perfect, but in my view it's vastly superior to blockchain.
      Time.... will tell.
      MR

  • SS

    Scuba S.

    8 2 2018 16:49

    11       0

    Just read through Baird's paper "Swirlds and Sybil Attacks".

    Executive Summary: The Swilrds company sells their consensus algorithm that can be built on a new or existing digital currency to create a hashgraph network. In order to prevent Sybil attacks the network uses some combination of Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, Proof of Burn, or permissioned consensus. An example of a public ledger is also given where Baird consents that in order to start a secure public ledger you need to start with a PERMISSIONED system.

    Here's the entire last paragraph, "But wait, isn’t that just like a permissioned blockchain? Yes, initially. But that is only to get it started. Over time, other members can join the ledger swirld. And other people can buy StakeCoin, either directly from the founders, or on an exchange. The ledger could even incentivize members to participate by paying tiny amounts of StakeCoin for participating, to encourage more people to join. Over time, it could become much more distributed, with the stake eventually spreading out, so that it becomes difficult for anyone to corner the market, even if the founders colluded. At that point, the cryptocurrency will have real value, the ledger swirld will have real security, the system will be open without permissioning, and no one will have to pay the costs of wasted proof-of-work computations."

    The only value proposition bitcoin or any digital currency has are its censorship resistant (permissionless) properties. If your new network requires permission it is not censorship resistant and offers little added difference from a spreadsheet built on top of the current fiat monetary system.

    • MR

      Marten R.

      9 2 2018 07:00

      3       0

      at low scale, every DLT is vulnerable to bad actors.
      the way to ensure that the public network is as secure as possible, it should start as a permissioned network which then converts to public... I don't see a problem with that.

    • SS

      Scuba S.

      9 2 2018 22:15

      1       0

      Great. If I create a closed DLT and only give myself permission to change the network it will be totally secure against Sybil Attacks. All the users have to do is TRUST that I am a benevolent dictator and will use my control of the network only for good. Is that a potential problem? Does that change if there are multiple people with permission? Who chooses the entities that get permission first? What if the permissioned entities decide to change the rules after letting you in the network? etc. etc.

      What is the difference between a permissioned (controlled) DLT and the current financial system? Does giving certain network users but not others control seem like a problem?

    • SS

      Scuba S.

      9 2 2018 22:24

      0       0

      Or let's look at it a different way...

      Isn't the point of a DLT network that all we have to do is trust the code and not trust the users??? All we have to do to bootstrap a public hashgraph network is to give permission (trust) to a certain set of users in exchange for security.

      Is that contradictory or am I missing something?

    • MR

      Marten R.

      10 2 2018 03:17

      2       2

      You are right... the objective of DLT is to eliminate the risk of trust.
      I.e. trust is achieved via the consensus algorithm.
      Blockchain seeks to achieve this one way, hash graph seeks to achieve it differently.
      The main issue seems to be how participants obtain voting rights.
      Per the discussion paper you refer to, there are a number of methods currently deployed in the market, each of which have their own risks / benefits.
      It all boils down to incentives.
      Obtaining voting rights should incentivise good behaviour.
      Inversely - behaving badly will cost you more than you will probabilistically benefit.
      MR

  • CD

    Chris D.

    8 2 2018 11:17

    3       10

    Is it just me or is this guy a male version of Helen Hunt?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVx2dzgwck

  • FV

    Fredrik V.

    8 2 2018 08:10

    0       5

    Thanks Rav for bringing this to my attention! More arguments to be bearish BTC and bullish the future.

  • JG

    Joe G.

    8 2 2018 03:02

    2       2

    A very nice HashGraph intro. Dr. Baird addresses Sybil attacks elsewhere. Proof of work/stake (bitcoin) ARE revolutionary. It took half a decade to for understanding to spread. Now it's widespread. How quickly will the focus (&$$) switch to newer/more effective&useful DL tech? HG is just the first of many to follow....

    Hang on ... think Wright flyer --- to moon landing.....humans are really really smart

  • RO

    Robert O.

    8 2 2018 02:34

    3       0

    Denial of service attacks is exactly what IT is doing to healthcare.
    The idea that adding yet another "advance" to the IT part of medicine will improve patient care is ignoring history.
    It is a zero sum game; as the time spent dealing with computer systems for documentation and billing increases the time spent with patients and thinking about the best treatment plan decreases.
    Taking this to the limit will make healthcare valueless to the patient.

  • DT

    Douglas T.

    8 2 2018 02:09

    17       9

    Hate to be so blunt, but all these programmers have lost the plot. They understand their cryptography pretty well, but don't know diddly about money.
    The modern world depends utterly on a system of credit, not money per se. The idea that our modern ultra-complex world could survive on a 'sound money' system is ludicrous.
    Consider a car manufacturer (not Tesla). Each car has roughly 15,000 parts, with sub assemblies and materials from all over the world. All of these parts have to be made, and shipped to the assembly plant, months before the car is actually made let alone paid for. All along the way payrolls must be met for all the workers. All the money that keeps this huge machine running, isn't money at all, it's credit.
    Everyday banks create a tsunami of new loans, which increases the bank money supply. At the same time there is a tsunami of loan payments reducing the bank money supply. Thus, our credit based system adapts to the demand for credit, both up and down on an enormous scale. The idea that Bitcoin could replace 1/1000th of that is a joke.
    However, the blockchain is also a joke. The world needs micro-transactions by the billions every day, not hugely inefficient blocks which are as clunky as a horse drawn carriage racing an F-22.
    The irony is that programmers (a conservative lot to begin with) are creating THOUSANDS of the most reactionary, backward money systems in history.
    BTW: I've programmed and managed programmers for nearly 50 years, so I know of what I speak.

    • ks

      kas s.

      8 2 2018 11:34

      1       1

      good point

    • NG

      Nicolas G.

      8 2 2018 22:28

      0       0

      You can have sound money and credit money (paper money). Remember the last gold standard? What you shall not have is shity money and credit money. This leads to Venezuela-type hyper-inflation cases. You may have thrilled in a shit-money society, but it does not mean it is right or fair for less favoured people. #$ #Largest scam ever.

  • JH

    Joel H.

    8 2 2018 01:02

    2       1

    Thanks for covering this RV. There is something here for sure, keep your eye on it.

  • MR

    Marten R.

    8 2 2018 00:44

    8       2

    People... remember the name Leemon Baird and remember Swirlds (company) / Hashgraph (technology).
    This is truly revolutionary / next level stuff.
    Basically the 5th generation of DLT...
    It is extraordinarily difficult to simply explain, the complex.
    Leemon does a great job (most likely due to his teaching training/experience)... and he is refining 'the pitch' as he goes.
    I am just astounded at his intellect and brilliance, well done RV for connecting the audience with this.
    Swirlds is already rolling out Hashgraph on a private ledger basis with US Credit Unions...
    Public ledgers will hopefully come soon (crypto currency)... and when it does, the game will be changed forever.
    Just ponder / reflect on the key features / genius of this:
    - insanely fast
    - no energy consumption
    - Byzantine fault tolerant (i.e. the highest possible level of security / accuracy)
    - MASSIVE (virtually unlimited) scale potential (i.e. huge amounts of transactions)
    I'm convinced.
    In the DLT battle - Hashgraph will be victorious.
    MR

    • CA

      Chris A.

      8 2 2018 18:21

      3       0

      I'm trying to understand this part about "as long as less than 1/3 of the nodes are evil"part. That seems like a very big thing to gloss over. Bitcoin is secure precisely because the cost to "do evil" is more than the value you would get by "doing good" (i.e. mining). That the brilliance of it. If I understood him correctly, you could attack this system for a very small cost just by creating cheap nodes. What am I missing?

    • PG

      Petter G.

      8 2 2018 18:47

      0       0

      Only one problem.. It't not secure in a public environment.

    • MR

      Marten R.

      9 2 2018 07:06

      2       0

      Chris: start here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwYU1Zr9Tg plus check out some of the associated videos, it's worthwhile, once the penny drops, the true brilliance and potential of this technology will be revealed...
      MR
      Petter - this technology is THE MOST secure of DLT, so on a relative basis it IS secure.
      On an absolute basis, it is VERY secure, however not 100% secure (but pretty darn close).

    • JH

      John H.

      24 2 2018 22:47

      3       0

      What might be left out of his "as long as less than 1/3 of the nodes are evil" is the additional phrase "and coordinated." 1/3 would have to be not only evil but lying the same lie.

  • JC

    Ja C.

    8 2 2018 00:30

    4       1

    Although its a great concept, especially equitable trade execution, instinct is saying short Leemon...

    • JC

      Ja C.

      8 2 2018 03:21

      0       2

      An interactive interview for the #realaudio fans:
      https://www.hiddenforcespod.com/leemon-baird-hashgraph-distributed-ledger-technology-blockchain/

      Does anyone else find Leemon reminiscent of @elonmusk?

      Still, it's a great concept.

  • NR

    Nathan R.

    7 2 2018 22:35

    6       5

    So, this “big innovation” sounds like an Ethereum or Cardano clone. It’s like the crazy guy in There’s Something About Mary going “Not Eight Minute Abs. Seven! Seven-Minute Abs.”

  • JV

    Jan V.

    7 2 2018 21:39

    7       2

    Very interesting. Would like to hear the opinion of Tuur Demeester on the "blockchain killer".

    • IO

      Igor O.

      9 2 2018 14:01

      3       1

      Tuur is very bitcoin biased.

  • PB

    Pieter B.

    7 2 2018 20:46

    4       0

    Thank you for explaining your idea/product. I will keep an eye on this going forward.

  • CM

    C M.

    7 2 2018 20:29

    1       1

    Data is an important business asset. Hard to buy into the idea that banks are going to share data and processing among themselves to make sure that one bad player doesn't abuse their access to the data. Same with healthcare providers, who are already moving to large regional networks and certainly will not be openly sharing data with competing health systems (though patients do need a better solution to organizing their health info). As far as crypto, haven't figured out why Hasbro hasn't put unique serial numbers on their monopoly money and let game buyers claim that money online as a crypto currency. Seems like a great way to sell some games. There clearly is some type of value in using encrypted ledgers, sounds like no one, including Leemon, haven't quite figured out the first best use.

  • BL

    Bruce L.

    7 2 2018 20:03

    16       0

    One of the less important pieces of information I get continually from Realvision is how many people are out there that are way way smarter than I am.

  • HU

    Henry U.

    7 2 2018 19:21

    2       0

    NYC Hashgraph Meetup @ WeWork NoMad - Feb 28 2018
    FYI, if you live in NYC and want to know more about Hashgraph you should go to this Meetup. 150 max capacity. Already 95 attending.

    • AG

      Andrew G.

      7 2 2018 22:55

      0       0

      Henry, I am a trader on a commodity cash market. I am confident I can replace myself with a computer using a hashgraph (back office) and RPA (front office). I need to find experts in each field. If you or someone you know might want to talk, please call 978 500 9301 or email Andrew.gibson@fctg.com

  • DM

    Dean M.

    7 2 2018 18:16

    5       0

    Thanks RV. Wanted to learn more about hashgraph and this did the trick. Bitcoin is working on the speed / transaction throughput side of things - check out all the great stuff on "lightning network".

  • dj

    daniel j.

    7 2 2018 18:12

    13       14

    What a piece of bollocks, no offense RV

  • IO

    Igor O.

    7 2 2018 18:10

    1       2

    Well, it's all very exciting and all. Blockchain is magical. Everybody knows that.
    It's been around for 10 years now, and maybe it's time to see some of its magic being implemented already?
    ..Bitcoin conference not able to accept bitcoin for payment?.. weird..
    Regarding Hashgraph. There is protocol (magical). No coin. No public ledger. No timeline. From what I know.

  • RA

    Ricardo A.

    7 2 2018 16:34

    4       0

    What would be the best way to invest in Hashgraph?

    • RM

      Robert M.

      8 2 2018 04:31

      0       0

      Thanks Ricardo, you would think more people would be asking this question, why else do we watch RV?

    • RA

      Ricardo A.

      8 2 2018 12:36

      0       0

      Its nice to know whats going on .. but its even nicer to make money.

  • GO

    Greg O.

    7 2 2018 14:09

    4       2

    Not a fan of bitcoin (IMO it is fundamentally worth ZERO) but I have to say that what I heard in this video about "hashgraph" is very interesting project/idea. Blows my mind mostly due to its simplicity.

    The only problem I have is that the author of hashgraph did not elaborate on that need of less than 1/3rd of bad actors. What would happen, what are the ways to prevent that happening in the real world, especially nowadays with all those social media lovers that forgot how to use their own brains and instead you can feed them with "social truth" and if they oppose then will be called fake?

    • TK

      Thomas K.

      7 2 2018 22:51

      5       1

      The 1/3 figure comes from theoretical mathematics. Look up the Byzantine Generals Problem if you want to understand why that result is so important. What he's describing here is a truly brilliant solution to a problem that has confounded theoretical computer scientists for decades: a byzantine fault tolerant consensus algorithm that operates over asynchronous networks (i.e., the internet) and doesn't involve an explosive number of messages to be sent relative to the number of transactions being performed.

      Regarding your question about fake news, dealing with any such type of traitorous behavior is precisely the point of a Byzantine tolerant algorithm. As long as the contagion afflicts less than 1/3 of the nodes, the problem will be detected and the correct decision will be made by the majority.

  • AG

    Amir G.

    7 2 2018 13:50

    16       21

    What a bunch of nonsense! Probably presented his PhD thesis in such a complex and vague manner just to impress and make you believe he’s a genius.
    RV gives and takes back. They put on the previous outstanding piece with Steve Keen that I watched for 3 times and enjoyed every bit of it, and then they take it away by putting on this crappy show.
    At the end of each interview, I asked myself: what did I learn and what has added to my knowledge, in this case, I learned that I just wasted half hour of my time watching this.
    To wrap up, a lot of the technologies he speaks of are redundant and already happening when you control your TV and deposit money to your bank account by simply using one of the apps on your phone and so many other things he mentioned are currently happening and existent. Nothing new on Bitcoins either!

    • EF

      Eric F.

      7 2 2018 16:07

      8       14

      I think I agree with Amir. This felt like a radio DJ condescendingly explaining bitcoin and blockchain and then trying to sell me hashgraph. Like Amir I ask myself - was this useful / can I use it? - and in this case I don't see a well spent half hour. Just my feedback but I'm not loving this and the recent AI talk. I come here for some link to finance / investment and these have veered off the path for me.

    • HJ

      Hiran J.

      7 2 2018 23:43

      7       1

      To Eric F - if it was 2011 and somebody presented a talk on blockchain technology and how bitcoin is a new type of money, would you be complaining that it has nothing to do with investment and finance?

  • LK

    Lyle K.

    7 2 2018 12:48

    0       0

    Ladies and Gents take a look at the first Cyborg...... Leemon Baird!
    Was entertaining but probably gonna have to wait till I get my Neurolink to understand this.

    • AN

      Andrew N.

      7 2 2018 17:48

      6       2

      Danger..... Patented equals ultimate centralized control equals same danger all centralized systems represent.
      Might be a credible alternative to blockchain if made public opensource but don't think this guy will get there..... at least not soon.

  • PN

    Paul N.

    7 2 2018 11:44

    42       7

    Comparing hashgraph with the blockchain is completely nonsensical. It only works in a closed system where you know who is in the group and people cannot openly join and leave the network. Otherwise it is trivial to sybil-attack the network because any bad actor can spin up thousands of nodes at little cost and dominate the voting mechanism. These are *really* basic, fundamental issues a decade old that blockchain engineers solved with proof-of-work and the bundling of transactions into blocks.

    Everybody knows that truly decentralized open systems like Bitcoin are slow. So I kind of laugh when every new project out there markets itself as way faster than the Blockchain. No, all you did was make a trade-off between decentralization and efficiency. Being a private consensus network, hashgraph's throughput is better compared to established centralized systems like VISA and Alipay which can do 250000 transactions per second today. I'm sure private consensus networks have some kinds of applications, but dozens of perfectly good private database technologies already exist for them. The blockchain is interesting because it works on the open internet where anyone can join or leave the network at any time and bad actors are continuously attacking it. This is an apples to oranges comparison.

    Also, the fact that hashgraph is closed source/patented is another red-flag. It shields his project from criticism and allows him to make any outrageous claim he wants about what hashgraph can do and experts can't dispute it.

    We're going to look back at these kinds of projects the same way people now think of Pets.com. History rhymes.

    • LV

      Luís V.

      7 2 2018 15:18

      6       1

      Paul N.
      I think Leemon Baird addressed the voting topic - it´s virtual and depends on info already there.
      As to closed/open source didn´t Leemon said at the begining it´s up to the person as to the "world" be open or closed?
      And for the searching and reading that I´ve done (not being in the biz), this guy explains the concept it very well. Much better than hundreds of proponents in the fintech industry.
      And he has a lot of speeches, Q&A online so every one can judge for himself and can dispute it.

      Finally, as with all technologies, it may not pass the test of time. But I don´t think Leemon Baird can be guilty of cheating, colluding or showing any hubris.

    • SS

      Scuba S.

      7 2 2018 18:52

      7       1

      Agree with your comment entirely. Blockchain is only good at one thing: censorship resistance.

      Proof of work is necessary to externalize a cost (electricity) on miners too keep them from attacking the network, and in exchange they are rewarded with something intrinsic to the network (new coins). If hashgraph nodes require tiny amounts of energy botnets (read Windows machines) can easily be used to sybil attack the hashgraph network. Hashgraph works great in interbank transaction networks where everyone is friends, but not so well in adversarial environments.

      In his own assumptions, which aren't mentioned in the video, an attacker only needs to control >1/3 of the hasgraph network nodes. I'm not sure what affect that would have on the hashgraph but I'm guessing it's not just a partial transaction history reorganization. Bitcoin requires 51% of hash power to attempt a partial 1 block reorg, or double spend. Which network is more expensive to attack?

      Bitcoin definitely has issues, but these two networks aim to solve different problems.

      He also seems to be a bit confused about what a bitcoin full node is. Here is a link that shows you how to make your own raspberry pi full bitcoin node.
      http://www.raspberrypifullnode.com/

    • KB

      Kenneth B.

      8 2 2018 10:11

      2       1

      Their response to the Sybil attack problem is addressed here: http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf

    • PN

      Paul N.

      8 2 2018 20:48

      1       1

      Their response is also nonsensical. Okay lets just use all the known consensus proposals and you can pick one because we dont know which one works... Proof of stake and proof of burn are completely untested, the other are straight up permissioned, and a network cannot be secure if only a small % are doing proof of work.

      Im more convinced than before that this project is a straight up scam.

  • JS

    John S.

    7 2 2018 11:22

    12       3

    I think my head just exploded!

  • HF

    Hans F.

    7 2 2018 11:00

    5       3

    Impressive. Highly appreciated.