Swirlds - Hashgraphs as a promising alternative to Blockchains?

[13Darko]

I saw on their website they have already raised some money during a closed private round, but is there any information they will have a public ICO?

[sanjoant]

Bit surprised even with a superior technology like Hashgraph not progressing much. Even don't seen many coins that build on this technology yet. Does any body knows any tokens doing this.

[marior]

There is no Ico, no Ico planned and no investment possibility.
Neither is there any public ledger or coin.

This might be something which will be seen in private projects first. Like you can see here:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171027005457/en/

[SEOProject]

I just came accross Swirlds and its concept of Hasgraphs is fascinating as it could solve practically all the issues of existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and PoS coins.

http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Overview-of-Swirlds-Hashgraph.pdf
http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf
http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf (Complete White Paper)
http://sammantics.com/blog/2016/7/27/hashgraph-consensus (Q&A)

It seems that a cryptocurrency based on the Swirlds framework could not only cope with high transaction rates (like VISA) due to its nearly-optimal efficiency, but Swirlds also allows the user to discard the old history of the hashgraph. According to the makers, that would shrink the amount of storage from Bitcoin’s current 60 GB to a fraction of a single gigabyte.

As an underlying framework, Swirlds could work together with PoW, PoS, PoB and other systems. If I understand it correctly, it would be possible to build a a PoS coin with two fundamental advantages over existing altcoins:

1) The prococol allows objective consensus, i.e. a new node could independently arrive to the same current state as the rest of the network based solely on protocol rules and messages propagated across the system. In contrast to regular PoS coins, there's no longest chain-rule and no blockchain that an attacker could forge at will. Instead, the network is based on locally stored hashgraphs containing all the "gossip about the gossip" about the actual transactions.

2) Nothing at Stake attacks aren't possible since there's no blockchain that could be double-mined on. In fact, forks are part of the system that is based on DAGs rather than chains.

Locally stored hashgraphs not a vulnerability for the attacker?

[deniskiely]

Does anybody knows when this coin will be listed on any exchange ? I'm very interested in this coin's solution

[qjawe]

Sounds cool, I had met the Hashgraph team when they are in Singapore.

[SEOProject]

Does anybody knows when this coin will be listed on any exchange ? I'm very interested in this coin's solution

it will not be soon, because first they need to perform a huge amount of technical work

[wwzsocki]

So this is still in early stages and nobody is using this tech in an existing coin or there is a project which has implemented hashgraphs?

I see this tech as a milestone for cryptocurrencies because solves all known problems. Scalability will be no more an issue can you imagine?

[gossipguy]

Have you had a the chance to check out the recent changes made to their website? It looks like there is an announcement coming out soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLNNxO12g

[marvtridon]

This is interesting. Am new here but do have a fair knowledge of how stuff works to grab a few things here.. Since they r planning on pre release,  my eyes would be on them.

[dis]

I'm sure I'm violating the TOS in some horrible ways, but here is the source code:

http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/sw2oSI6B/file.html

Some observations reading the paper:

The initial prose is marketing jumbo, but later it does attempt some formalization. It is a bit overselling (the algorithm is semantically as secure as Tendermint is in PoS case).

The key takeaway is the usual DAG stuff - removing the need for transactions/blocks/swirdldoodads to be atomicized into sequentially serialized blocks, it's possible to "bury" each transaction smoothly and by more verifiers who don't need to act fully serialized - the more so the longer you go into the past. The price you pay is that you must establish total order to serialize events later on your own via a graph rule (the "virtual voting") - to resolve post-facto conflicting DAG nodes. Swirdl sadly doesn't improve on this bound in any way.

This is all talked about in much deeper detail in SPECTRE.  You can also find far better formalization as well as a nice intuition of what goes on in Aviv's paper.

[Blocktree]

I am in .
Thanks this great tech.

[jacaf01]

Off course new tech are welcome, but I just ope this will not be another IOTA tangle tech, that has been unable to deliver on what the hype was all about, people need to realise that not all great ideas will end well because of the level of trade off to make it succeed and scale long term.