Hedera Hashgraph and the Future of Consensus | Internet for the 21st Century with Leemon Baird 

thats why alarm bells should go off... the thing is patented, i.e., won't be of any use to the public unless its open sourced..

@@umkhonziwezulu2941 yeah its patend so that others cant copy paste like ADA does lol

Yeahhh, yeahhh, yeahhhhhh. Someone should make a meme video of that.

Even a coin ​@@Vipenstrike

LOL.....me too.

Oh shut the fuck up you fucking shill.

Allan Barker if it ain't open source then it won't do humanity any favours.

Second the open source comment. How do you know he is doing stunning work?

Allan Barker This is Pure Disinformation! To Confuse, Tech expecting minds! This is a Closed System!. So who controls it? You guessed it! It's back to the Banksters/Gangsters once again! They have a patent on it. Therefore, running against the whole open environment of open source Blockchain! Do not be deceived!

The Naughty Spanish Channel Hear! Here! 👋

xmchughs Yeah! I think he's an actor. Way too good. Have been trained really well by banksters with deep pockets! Thanks for Not being Deceived!

Dan the Tesla Man :) kudos on the return Demetri

Holy shit it's actually Mike. I didn't think you were this deep into crypto

GoldSilver (w/ Mike Maloney) Hey Mike this tech is not open source so it won’t be used to solve issues of the world you describe.

Do we have enough people of this calibre to bring this to fruition?

exactly ___these kinds of people should vanish___we dint need them too__someone will come up with something better and make it open source

Forks are impossible, because you need consensus to create a fork and consensus requires 2/3 of the nodes. Which means you would need 4/3 to come to a consensus to fork. That is an impossible number since you can't have more than 100% of what you already have. Consensus comes from pre-existing nodes, which means new nodes being added don't get to vote on what is being decided, new nodes will get to vote only on the future decision. Thus impossible to flood the network with new nodes to mess up the decision.

Not prevent, mitigate.

YES, that is a certainty. The question is when and who will make it. HashGraph is only the tech and Swirlds has no intention of making the coins. Which means a 3rd party will be the coin, for example Ethereum could go with Ethereum 2.0 and use Hashgraph with that new coin.

Couldn't find them on the list. We just need to be patient, investment will be possible once a crypto coin comes out

I just don't see that. If it is a permissioned system then there is a central power and if there is a central power we are right back where we started only with a different group in charge of whatever type system it is. Banks would still have a federal reserve type group in charge, etc etc

ok, we will see then.

No Siji I Think NOT, Oh they want the general population to be on this at a dollar! Not at $10,000.00 per bitcoin. They want you to be using it, but with only them profiting from it. Typical Government exclusionary thinking. Only Bitcoin allows ALL to profit equally. Stupid people , why do you think it is already developed and it is not even offered to the public? REPLY

Exactly how if this is a patented product? Maybe you can create an open source version?

siji olawumi Waaay easy to understand than Blockchain.

If it was more elegant, companies would have chose Maidsafe instead of Swirlds

Actually, you want patented tech. Imagine this scenario, someone sells you on a coin but the coin use blockchain open source, which means the code can be changed anytime they want. How safe would you think your coins will be? Every time you surf the internet, you have patented tech that protects you as an individual, you see it all the time. HTTPS uses certificates which are patented. So you are saying Open sourcing your sensitive data on the internet would be better? Open source is also the reason we have 1100+ coins killing crypto, too many of them with no funds or actual scams. Just to name a few names out there: "EtherDoge, Facecoin, MobileCash, SportsCoin, EggCoin, etc" none of those coins are worth anything. By having a patent, only the serious players will contribute to this, which means no one will be able to modify the source code in order to scam people. If a company is saying their coin is working off Hashgraph technology, then you will know for 100% certainty the tech hasn't been modified. Open source and crypto currency are oxymoron. Open source only works for projects or software, not currency. You can't say it is free by calling open source and then say it is not by calling it a currency. Heck, the top crypto coins are open source and charge a lot for a transaction. Bitcoin is up to $20 per transaction. I don't know how else to say this, open source for money is very very bad. Opens the road to scammers.

You are obviously not keeping up with what he is talking about. HashGraph is to benefit everyone. Which means, if a company wants their tech to design a new crypto coin, they can. That coin will have all the anonymity that one could expect. All the crypto coins out there that are open source are ran by companies, you think they do that out of the kindness of their own heart? The problem with open source is that anyone can do it, this includes scammers. And FYI, patented doesn't mean the opposite of open source, it means the core technology has to be used as is, no modifications allows (good bye scammers). Oh and in one of his videos, explains exactly how the technology works, so anyone could reproduce it if they wanted to, they just not allowed to modify it and that's a good thing. If anyone could modify a program, you be screwed. What do you think your browse runs on right now? HTTPS, what do you think the S stands for. That security comes with certificates which has patents. You want to feel safe in this world? You need patents, they are not buts about it. On the other hand, you can sit back and wait as this change is happening without your consent anyway.

I have seen you comment a bunch of times regarding open source and patents. You are severely wrong about that, completely misinformed. I don't blame you, but your critiques regarding open source are simply wrong, they are not even wrong fallacy. There are many different types of open source licenses, some are more permissive than others. Some just allow you to inspect the code, and copy it, but not distribute it widely such as through package managers etc... There could be a way in which you can be able to license it in such a way where it could be open, and auditable by others, and not have the sort of issues where you have scammer shit coin 102 just pump and dump. If that was the concern there would be a way to legally protect yourself from that. It might be that he did this, for defensive purposes, Stephen Kinsella an IP lawyer, who does this for a living who is trying to get rid of all intellectual property rights says that sometimes this is an absolute necessity, because someone else who might independently arrive to the same invention you have and now you are going to be completely left out. So I can see why SOME people choose to follow that path, FOR defensive purposes. I can't really say what is the case in this situation. Copyright is antithetical to the free market, now the problem is that is the current system we have so I can see within that reality of why some people use it. I don't think its the right approach , but I can understand why they do it. A copyright is a temporary monopoly over something, because you added your intellectual labor to something and you want to have exclusive rights to it. That is the TOTAL opposite of what open source means. So you trying to make a false argument regarding patents vs open source, just shows you completely lack understanding regarding both. You kept trying to say, that firefox being open source has not been able to patch that Tor security leak. You see the problem with your statement is the idiocy involved in it. With closed source software, you are not EVEN aware of that fact. There is simply no guarantee that it will be done, it might be patched. It might not be patched. Most of the time in open source projects when there is a serious security bug, they immediately patch it. Take a look at heartbleed, that was fixed asap. I can give you hundreds of known examples, open source bugs are fixed REALLY quickly once they are known. Now its easy to simply crap on open source, but security by obscurity is not security at all. Any decent computer scientist worth his salt knows that. Sure most people don't know how to read code, or would care to do so. But that is not the point of open source at all, the process of understanding coding is not egalitarian at all, only a few people can be able to appreciate the code. The thing is that it allows the respected professionals in the field, to be able to peer review the code, and therefore the likelihood where there is important stuff where security is paramount and trust is limited, to be able to be at ease. This is where a lot of people are RIGHTLY concerned, when you are dealing with currency. Being open source is ABSOLUTELY a must. Like I said, doesn't have to copyfree, or copy left. There are plenty of choices to choose from, the amount of individuals that can be able to code at the level that this guy is doing, is VERY VERY small. So keeping permissions with only the most highly technical and good programmers is a must. Again all of this can be done while keeping control of the direction of the project. Now I don't necessarily agree with everything these authors said, and I don't think every argument they make in the book is sound, because I am not a libertarian at all. mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property , but the fundamentals are absolutely spot on. Here is another one, levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm and copyfree.org explains the differences between different open source licenses. Now here is the thing based off everything he has been saying I have no doubt that this is going to benefit everyone, but only if and only if, whenever they get started on public permissionless ledgers. Yes private permissioned ledgers while they have many interesting use cases, they are totally useless to the little guys like you and me, they are more for businesses which do help reduce prices and efficiency. So in some way its a win win for everyone, but the REAL interesting application of hashgraph will be the public permissionless DLT. As of right now, we simply have to wait further to see how it is done, and handled. From what I can tell he is not going to try to inhibit innovation in the space, from his patent, i.e. he is not going to be a patent troll. The main reason I have that confidence is not simply because he said so, but because he is fundamentally a mathematician at heart. You can tell he does this, for the right reasons. So I agree to disagree in some parts, and agree where it matters most. That this is going to be a positive thing for humanity. So long as he doesn't go evil on us, we should all be okay. And there seems to be no reason to think that is the case, it just would really make this project into legendary status if he did decide to ever open source, under any license which would be okay with him.

@Scholastic Philosopher -- Sorry, not going to read all that. You know, sometimes short answers are more educational than accurate ones. I'll read your next post if it is way shorter.

Hashgraph isn’t a crypto. It’s a better ledger than blockchain. hBar is now a Hashgraph crypto though.

One word: Wikipedia. A gazillion hours of dedicated effort from experts in their fields, given freely and anonymously to the best of their ability, for the pleasure of doing it. It's a mad world.

If you are saying HashGraph is centralized, then you understood nothing. Can we please have someone with at least a little intelligence to post decent comments?

@DanMoto By that logic, might as well say miners are pre-approval. Or proof of stake is pre-approval. You obviously have no clue what centralized mean. There is no way to work around the issue that you need at least 1 system to send request. Take Bitcoins for example, you are using the network that is controlled by a leader. Any version of a blockchains requires a request sender, so by your logic, everything is centralized. That is just stupid. And the nodes are random points where no one has any say what goes where, show me in which dictionary that is considered centralized. I would love to see it!

Supremax67 do you even know what you are talking about? Miners centralized? lol come on try at least.

If you knew anything about PoW and therefore mining then you would know why they are trying to move away from it. It's not just that it uses a lot of energy, it's also because the economics of mining make it less distributed. Already > 50% of the bitcoin hashing power is owned by 2 companies. You also get geographical consolidation as miners move to countries where the electricity is cheaper and/or the weather is cooler.

Exactly, Hashgraph is basically a threat to Ripple, not to Bitcoin.

Yes. Agreed. Not open source, not interested. Centralized platform which we are sick of. If people think they want to be controlled and misled then Hashgraph would suit them.

I actually think it's arrogant to have something that important to be closed source. Not just because of its importance to humanity, but also to assume no one smarter will have to come along and reverse engineer a better system if for no other reason to democratise the functionality/integrity. A keeping the source closed creates a disparity between digital haves and have nots. It exposes the have nots to the haves. Of course you will have beasts like the NSA who will be the haves. Although it won't take long for them to do their own version. Just open it up already. It's bigger than you or your company.

And yet bitcoin is open source and now in the hands of 'core' (hmm, that word is a bit like 'central') and core is funded by AXA, the very worst of the banksters and the biggest recipient of bailout money in the GFC which that bunch of crims engineered. Leemon's vision is probably incomprehensible to bitcoin core fans because they are not even smart enough to see the doo doo on the tip of their nose.

Open source movement is bigger than bitcoin. It builds trust and collaboration in developers community. Linux, IBM Hyperledger, Python,(even Microsoft .NET lol) and pretty much any big development platform out there is open source. This is just the new standard.

I know open source is a good model for some projects. My point was that it did nothing to stop the takeover by banksters in the Bitcoin (now segwitcoin) space. And yet so many fans of open source here seem to think that just because hashgraph is patented, that is a blot and stain that fatally discredits it. Blinding them to the superior technology to that which open source built then lost to villains.

blockchain is circling the drain as we speak

that struck me also, the world runs of profit, so the ad business world is going to have to be very creative in this new Utopian dream.

James King : That's what they said about Wikipedia. Turns out that after we are fed and watered, roof over our head, etc., we actually get a lot of personal fulfillment from doing what we love to do and are good at, without needing to be paid. Astounding, I know.

You actually mean 2/3, but you got it confused with the governance model, not Hedera. Hedera would only own 1.7% of the tokens. The tokens is to prevent hacking of the network on day 1, as the day progresses, more and more coins are getting released to make sure no one holds more than 1/3 of the network. As soon as they know the network is well distributed, you'll see less than 10% tokens held by the governance model. Distribution is done over time and no single company makes the decision. It requires 26 out of 39 companies to agree to those types of changes, none of them holds more than 1.7% of the shares which trickles down month by month.

It's called disingenuousness. And evil.

Just think of a layer cake - bottom to top. It’s a digital filing cabinet, like a database. Even Amazon, Google and Facebook store things in a database. That database is stored on server computers. Blockchain is a database stored on an internet ‘computer’ network, backing itself up constantly on other computers. Hashgraph is a better blockchain of sorts. But it is written to that individual cell phones, computers and servers store the information. A distributed network of non-centralized computers that all store the “database” if you want to call it that. Hope this helps

Open source? open source!?!?!? ROFL. You mean that thing that lets ANYONE fork the coin for easy profit regardless if it fucks over your wallet or not? Yeah, great stability there.

go with time or be left behind.

Funny you should mention that, 90% of cryptos that are open source are being left behind. So much for open source being useful.

ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?reload=true&searchWithin=%22Authors%22:.QT.Leemon%20Baird.QT.&newsearch=true Dude is off the charts intelligent, he got a PhD in computer science in Carnegie Mellon University, in record time. Yeah that is right, he is leagues above you my friend. What you see in that man is a genuine mathematician at heart. That makes a difference. leemon.com/papers/ you see here well over 98 papers, most of them peer reviewed in prestigious places. What has your lame ass done? Nothing. He has written extensively in machine learning, computer science, mathematics and a bunch of other really difficult topics. He also is not just a theoretician, but has actually employed other people in previous start ups. So he has had a history, while I would say most people just saying buzzwords are totally ignorant, the dude has a REAL track record of UNDERSTANDING the fundamentals of what he is trying to convey. Most marketers don't understand what the heck they are talking about, but this guy is something else. This is more than just hype, go friggin read his stuff on your own and see he is 100% legit mate. I am not saying that I have seen the source code, but what he has shown does mathematically work out to be true. So everything he is saying is simply the logical implications that one can use with the layer he is trying to build here. In the end we will see, whether the businesses that have already signed up will get what they signed up for. 6000 banks have signed up for it, that is no small number. That is the entire USA credit unions, that is A LOT OF dough. Their coders, took a look at the code, and decided to use this against the competition. So, either they are totally illiterate idiots, or there is something here. Based off the past, I would say this is not just pure hype, this is genuine. We will see, the proof is in the pudding.

And here we are 4 years later and people are starting to listen. Just him saying it's all fun the more complicated it is just shows he is a math genius and passionate about it, it's his life not just about money. He really is genuine and cares about the results and how it will affect the world.

Oh wow, you manage to say something by saying nothing. A good waste of 4 lines. If you say something is bad, you have to prove your point. Bashing is the first sign of the uneducated. How about some humility and asking questions instead? What were they talking about? Did that sound right? Did I miss something? Naw, you prefer pissing on people and embracing ignorance. You heard yourself right? You judge a 1 hour video just by the first 18 seconds. If that is not stupidity, I don't know what is. Well good luck to you man

I have to "prove" NOTHING when it is my OPINION. Do you understand that, Bernie Madoff?