yeah man, haven't you heard, blockchain is *soooo* last month! lol :)

actually, the post sort of says just the opposite, that Hashgraph so far seems to be more "bark than bite", but I visited your post anyway and upvoted since at least you made the effort to try. :)

STEEMIT and BitShares use DPOS, not UXTO/Hashgraph.

it's amazing that every article and video I watch basically emphasizes the following claim, "timestamps on transactions" are determined by the community.  Yet, just because transactions are inserted in their "correct order", does not imply they are "valid" transactions.  In the context of a credit union alliance, it's probably fine as they *more or less* trust one another.  However, they will still need to implement other ways to assert the validity of the underlying transactions themselves.

>Fair Ordering - No single party can influence the order of transactions that the network ultimately agrees on. Competing platforms put the power of transaction order into the hands of a single party. With hashgraph, **timestamps on transactions** are determined by the community as a whole, not a single leader.

As for US experts calling things out to help people avoid losses, never rely on anyone but yourself to protect you.  If you have any doubts to that effect, read this article I posted last week: <a href="https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexpmorris/how-much-would-steemit-or-bitshares-be-worth-as-shares-on-the-new-york-stock-exchange">"How much would STEEMIT or BitShares be worth as SHARES on the New York Stock Exchange?!"</a>.

sounds like you pretty much were able to get the "gist" of it! :)

iota is a young currency, it can not quickly rise should wait a little bit!;)

you got it, @matt-a, but then again, you're one the last people I'd expect to have to explain it to! :)

Besides that, hope all's going well, and Best Wishes for the New Year to all of you!

Spamming comments is frowned upon by the community. 

Comment spam is currently defined by @steemcleaners as:

* 10 or more generic comments per day that are not in response to a question posed by the post or comment. “Thanks”, “Great Post!”, “Great Photo!”, “Good”, “Like”, “Nice”, “Wow”, “Cute”, “Follow me”, etc.

* Commenting on old posts to hide self up-votes or a voting trail.

* Copy/Paste comments that serve no purpose or the purpose is self promotion (including copying and pasting similar comments in rotating way).

* Comments that inform the contributor that they have been up upvoted, resteemed, or flagged when the curator does not actually upvote, resteem, or flag the post.

* Unsolicited and off topic referral links.

Continued comment spamming may result in action from the [cheetah bot](https://steemit.com/steemitabuse/@cheetah/cheetah-bot-explained).

More Info: <a href="https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@steemcleaners/abuse-guide-2017-update">Abuse Guide - 2017</a>.

humble's good, never stop learning! :)

I read your post, and I've *re*-watched some of the videos you posted *(most of which I had already seen before)*.  Oddly, the validation is always conveniently overlooked.  Yet, Baird does an excellent job at repeating "Fast, Secure, and Fair" to make sure the terms are well-ingrained into the viewer's subliminal and subconscious mind.  He even starts out by saying it's currently meant for **permissioned** blockchains, yet he *repeatedly* compares it directly to other blockchains, again repeating the mantra, *in comparison*, that Hashgraph is "Fast, Secure, and Fair".  

I'm not saying that Hashgraph doesn't have its particular niche, but the performance claims, *by Baird included*, are frankly only achievable in very particularly tight usage cases.  If I'm still missing something here, perhaps @dan could fill in any gaps in my understanding here, as I'm quite sure he understands this far better than most, myself included.

And once more, for good measure, to *really* ingrain it into your minds...

![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmRn7qynSv8EqccoRJZigJB5UE2jxrYiaGxNX3pZZRPdW9/image.png)

You say that DAGs aren't Hashgraph.  However, do you really believe that if graphene swapped out its currently foundation in lieu of Hashgraph that it would really be orders of magnitude *faster*?  That seems quite unlikely to me.  But perhaps I will be proven wrong in the near future.  

As such, I do look forward to seeing some of these performance claims *validated* in a real-world application such as STEEMIT in the near future *(quoting from your post)*:

>Hashgraph is both an algorithm and data structure that doesn't use blocks or wait for blocks to be confirmed. There are no blocks of transactions, but instead streams of events that can be segregated into clear transactions. Since there is no waiting for blocks, Hashgraph can do hundreds of thousands of transactions per second. In comparison, Bitcoin can do 7 transactions per second and Ethereum 15 transactions per second, but even these rates are at their best performance and not their worst.

>Hashgraph is not the same and currently is only implemented in Swirlds and nowhere else.

I'd also be interested in your perspectives vis-a-vis what I further commented to @nutela on his comment above as well:

>So at this point all that is available for Swirlds is a closed-source library, and I've gotta contact their sales department if I want to deploy my application?! Not to mention, of course, that Swirlds even has multiple patents on the future of the "free and open" blockchain killer, which of course is their private solution, wait for it... Hashgraph!

As I've written in other comments, I'm not saying there aren't particular use-cases where Hashgraph may be useful, such as for the purpose of a temporal distributed order book.  But the thing is, perhaps you can explain to me (except for *possibly* a more stream-lined "plug-and-play" solution), how this is so revolutionary versus something like Bisq Network *(also open-source and written in Java)*:

>To be properly decentralized, one must avoid single points of failure:
>
* Bisq does not hold any bitcoins. All are held in multisignature addresses rather than a Bisq-controlled wallet.
* Bisq does not hold any national currency. National currency is transferred directly from one trader to the other.
* **Bisq uses a Peer-to-Peer network over Tor. This means there are no servers to be hacked or DDoS’d.**
* Bisq does not know the traders. No data is stored on who trades with whom.
* Bisq does not require registration. This means privacy is maintained, there are no “approval” wait times, * and identity theft becomes impossible.
* Bisq is not a company. It is an open source project organized as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO).

Link: <a href="https://bisq.network/faq/">Bisq Network FAQ</a>

In addition, by using TOR, counterparties have a lot more anonymity than I would expect they would through a Swirlds-based solution, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Also, perhaps you can also better explain to me this whole *concept* of "gossip about gossip", because the more I try to understand it, the more it seems to me little more than a fancy marketing "buzzword".

this is kind of interesting too, @nutela.  I went to check out the <a href="http://www.swirlds.com/download/">Swirlds/Hashgraph SDK</a>, and saw this message:

>The SDK is free for anyone to download and play with. You can even experiment with building applications on it. **If you would like to deploy your application, contact us at sales@swirlds.com**

And from this post, <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/story/14385913/1/is-hashgraph-technology-just-hype-or-can-it-dethrone-blockchain-.html">"Is Hashgraph Technology Just Hype, or Can It Dethrone Blockchain?"</a>:

>"Until Hashgraph releases the core code as open source, and they are able to gain a real user base it poses zero threat to blockchain," said David Moskowitz, co-founder and CEO of Indorse, a decentralized professional network company based in Singapore. 
>
>"There are dozens if not hundreds of new blockchains claiming to be superior to Bitcoin, but until they gain significant community support and are truly battle tested I do not see them as more than long shots," he said.

So at this point all that is available for Swirlds is a closed-source library, and I've gotta contact their *sales* department if I want to *deploy* my application?!  Not to mention, of course, that Swirlds even has <a href="http://www.swirlds.com/ip/">multiple patents</a> on the future of the "free and open" blockchain killer, which of course is their private solution, wait for it... Hashgraph! 

Hmmmm......... yeah, unless I'm *reeeeeeaaaaalllly* missing something here, I think I'll pass.