5 min read
Hashgraph is more energy-efficient than its blockchain counterparts as there are no ‘stale’ blocks that miners waste energy on – each node adds a hash last created by itself and a second hash received from another node. This translates to a potential transaction bandwidth of 10,000 TPS and a 3-7 second finality competitive with other major Layer-1 blockchains
Hashgraph is a distributed ledger technology that has been described as an alternative to blockchains. The hashgraph technology is currently patented, and the only authorized ledger is Hedera Hashgraph. The native cryptocurrency of the Hedera Hashgraph system is HBAR.
It is a consensus method that offers a different approach to distributed ledger technology. It is patented by Swirlds, and no one other than a license can use it. However, we also have Hedera Hashgraph, and it is a public Hashgraph network. It has all the Hashgraph consensus algorithm features with slight changes in how it utilizes the leader format. It uses gossip about gossip and Virtual Voting as the two techniques to maintain connectivity and consensus.
The Hashgraph is designed to offer a secure, fair, and fast network. It is implemented using Java and Lisp programming languages. This also means that it also supports Solidity. One of the most significant advantages of the Hashgraph network is its speed.
Hedera Hashgraph vs Blockchain: How Are They Different?
The most significant difference between Hashgraph and blockchain is their approach. Blockchain stores data in blocks — in a linear way. The append approach works great but is not always the way for blockchain solutions out there. Hashgraph, on the other hand, utilizes the directed acyclic graph for storing and accessing information. In both the DLTs, each node has a copy of the ledger, making it truly decentralized.
When it comes to security, both blockchain and Hashgraph stand strong. Blockchain has a different approach where they utilize cryptographic methods to ensure security for the data stored and transmitted on the network.
The digital blocks are tamper-proof and malicious actors in no way can change the integrity of the data. For example, if someone tampers with the data, the signature becomes invalid, which alarms the nodes of a possible breach or malicious activity.
Hashgraph utilizes Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance (aBFT) to secure the network from bad actors. Each of the events is recorded correctly, and the approach makes sure that no data can tamper even when the network has some malicious actors.
Just like blockchain, a transaction, once completed, cannot be changed or edited in any possible way. This also means that it is secure from a 51% attack. The Hedera Hashgraph, on the other hand, has made a slight change in how they use aBFT. The consensus algorithm doesn’t use a leader format to ensure that DDoS attacks don’t hamper the network. In our Hedera Hashgraph vs Blockchain, we think that both of them offer.
Blockchain doesn’t have a single approach to consensus. It depends on the cryptocurrency or platform. There are many popular consensus algorithms used in blockchain. Few of them include Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake, Proof-of-Elapsed Time, and so on.
NEO, yet another popular blockchain solution, utilizes delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance. It is an improved consensus algorithm that learns from PoF and PoS.
Hashgraph or Hedera Hashgraph, on the other hand, uses virtual voting as the form of gaining network consensus. Hashgraph, itself, is a consensus algorithm, but it does have a lot to offer if we see finer details.
Blockchain’s speed varies depending on the solution (cryptocurrency, platform, etc.). However, it is comparatively slower to Hashgraph. Theoretically, Hashgraph can reach a speed of 5,00,000 transactions per second. Practically that may change depending on other factors. Blockchain solutions such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., are considerably slow and can offer a speed of only 100 to 10,000 transactions per second.
Hashgraph Gossip method is the reason behind its speed. With it, less information needs to be propagated across the network as more events take place.
Blockchain is less fair when it comes to miners or users. The miner has more power when it comes to selecting orders he wants to process, their order, and even stop transactions. This is not fair to anyone who is directly or indirectly connected to the network.
Hashgraph handles fairness differently, where it allocates nodes randomly. It also utilizes consensus time stamping, which means that no individual is affected due to the order of the transactions. However, the concept of fairness is still vague and is not adequately explained in the Hashgraph whitepaper. It is one of the important aspects of Hashgraph vs Blockchain comparison.
Hashgraph is 100% efficient due to its approach. Blockchain’s block approach makes it hard for miners to work on a block. There are instances when two blocks are mined at the same time. This means that the miner’s community now needs to decide on one block, which means that the other block is discarded. In the end, the effort of the miners is wasted, resulting in a less efficient network. As Hashgraph doesn’t have to rely on block creation, but only events, it doesn’t suffer from the problem.
Adoption and Development Stage
When it comes to the adoption and development stage, blockchain beats Hashgraph easily. Blockchain is almost a decade old, and it reaps the benefits from first to market. It has seen many attempts at perfection – such as the release of Ethereum that supports dApps and smart contracts. Specific blockchain solutions such as NEO, VeChain, etc., also started to surface. Hashgraph, on the other hand, is not near to the adoption rate of blockchain.
Firstly, it is a patented technology. The public variant, Hedera Hashgraph, is still in active development. At the time of writing, it is used by 300+ companies, which may seem a lot, but less compared to companies that are using blockchain technologies.