Hashgraph 50,000 times faster than blockchain?

…by using ‘gossip about gossip’ algorithm.

I look forward to seeing if our community crypto experts judge this as having potential…

It depends what you mean by potential.
In my opinion this article is a very good example of capitalisation of blockchain hype. A good exciting idea; but with no substance or proof of concept.

‘Hashgraph’ states it’s:

an entirely new distributed ledger technology that is much more cost-effective (no proof-of-work), 50,000 times the speed, safer (Byzantine), more efficient (no stale blocks) and mathematically fairer than the blockchain.

Let’s explore this statement.

“an entirely new distributed ledger technology … (no proof of work)”

Blockchains running without ‘proof of work’ or on a ‘proof of stake’ protocol have existed for a while now; it’s not something new.
The article it’s self has even been edited to include the point that Ethereum will be running off ‘proof of stake’ in the near future.
And Ethereum won’t be the first or the last, ether (see what I did there).

For example the ‘PotCoin’ ecosystem runs off a proof of stake protocol, and it’s pretty popular with Kim Jong Un and Dennis Rodman:

The biggest advantage of a ‘proof of stake’ protocol over a ‘proof of work’ protocol is that there is no to little proof; of how or when the coins were created.
There is a shared ledger as to who own’s what coins. But no information on where the coins came from or who made them.
This makes ‘a proof of stake blockchain’ more susceptible to centralisation,uncontrolled creation of coins, and theft of coins much, much more likely.
The statement that it’s ‘entirely new’ technology, is very questionable to say the least.

‘50,000 times the speed’, safer (Byzantine)

Can they prove it?
Unfortunately, most ‘proof of stake’ ecosystem’s can’t. They can’t prove if the creation of coins were created by network consensus, or by one person typing numbers into a computer.
It might be able to prove and keep a record of all transactions; if it employs overly complicated systems to keep track of all the transactions happening. But, by complicating the network, you also also create more vulnerable area’s that others can exploit or manipulate.

This is supported by their proposal of using ‘Byzantine’; what is Byzantine? you can see it’s whitepaper here. Essentially it’s an overly complicated system, that (in my opinion) would create more exploitable vulnerabilities, rather than prevent a lack of consensus. Making you less secure than more secure.

more efficient (no stale blocks) and mathematically fairer than the blockchain.

This is probably the least accurate claim made by the article. It can be disseminated with one question. If you can’t prove how each coin is created; can you state with certainty that the coin’s wern’t created by a hacker, or in secret by the company themselves?
How is it a fair system if you can’t?

With all those claims not being entirely factual, and the use of closed source programming with patents pending.
To me this presents as something that might be trying to take advantage of vulnerable investors with little to no knowledge of what ‘blockchain’ is.

Andreas Antonopulos explains why you should stay vigilant in this space in this video titled ‘blockchain vs. bulls**t’:

Want to read about something, that addresses these issues and one that I feel is potentially more innovative?

Something quite similar is Iota: https://bitsonline.com/iota-internet-know-today/

No fees, no mining required, potentially unlimited scalability. If anything its just a bit too far ahead of its time to be adopted as mainstream anytime soon.


IOTA has started a massive uptrend recently!

yeah, there have been a ton of rumours recently of partnership announcements between IOTA and some big companies. It’s also being released onto OKEx platform, an exchange based in Asia.