A stable ledger in an unstable forking world by Dr. Leemon Baird | Hedera Hashgraph Webinar

[@TonyCamero]

Leeman, you're making this all too much fun...

[@sandysutb]

What a beautiful and short explanation of Merkel Tree(you'll appreciate if you have CS background). Hedera is indeed made of brilliant engineers. Just WOW!

[@GreyDragonChannel]

Why are there not already 50,000+ views? Spread the word on the Hedera Hashgraph channel, friends!

[@777jimkim]

Wow, this man has back up plans for back up plans ad infinitum

[@PatrickShaughness]

Geat job, Leemon!

[@TonyCamero]

Great production, thanks.

[@migengro]

Simply outstanding. I thank you!

[@Supremax67]

All that was missing from this presentation was a mic drop!

[@simplyapleb9027]

This guy is going to create the future

[@Badlikeme]

Soooooooo glad I’m not too late to get in on this.

[@777jimkim]

Military scientists are no joke

[@postulation]

Ahead of the game 😁

[@arthurostapenko8708]

Great explanation! But I have a question - if there are a lot of nodes in the main net, let's say 100 000, there will be 66 001 signatures needed for a supermajority. They will be very huge. Is there a way to aggregate them somehow? In other words - how many kilobytes(megabytes?) do you expect state proofs will be?

[@Supremax67]

Not really. Shards limit the number of nodes you can have. So after a certain threshold, it is under a different shard. It will never reach much beyond 100 nodes or so.

[@arthurostapenko8708]

@@Supremax67 But then decentralization will be very limited. If one shard compromised - all network might be compromised

[@Supremax67]

@@arthurostapenko8708 -- That's not how it works. If one shard is compromised, only the data the shard uses won't be accessible, that data had nothing to do with other shard coming to consensus, nor do the other shard would care if one shard was down. But to bring down a shard is no small feat either, you have to compromise 1/3 of the nodes and the worse you could ever do with such an attack is slow down the network, but only on that shard. The rest of the network would laugh it off.

[@arthurostapenko8708]

@@Supremax67 Data will be perfectly accessible. And it will get valid state proofs if 2/3 nodes in one shard are compromised. If an attacker has an account with 10 hbar in shard 1, and this shard is compromised, then he can modify state in such a way that his account will have 1M hbar. Then he sends a transaction with a transfer of those 1M hbars to another account in other shard and this transaction has valid state proof. So second's shard honest nodes validating this proof and is accepting this transaction. Now we have two shards with an incorrect state. Then third shard, fourth etc. Eventually, all network state will be invalid due to only one compromised shard.

[@Supremax67]

@@arthurostapenko8708 -- That's not how it works with Hashgraph. Being an evil node just kicks you out of the shard, unlike other protocols. If your node is out of the shard, you can't contribute to consensus. You also forget that they have to prove the wallet has digital signed the TRX and again, the signature won't match, no matter how many fake signatures you want to submit. The only way you can attack this network is by slowing down the network, corrupting it is impossible. Dr. Leemond Baird explains this thoroughly through so many of his videos.

[@ohoraherecaptain]

Cool. Forking Question: Once forked i.e. two platforms operating independently. When updating - is there any crossover back to the source? And if so, why can’t the later history of that source [post fork period] be redirected back to the update?

[@paulmadsen]

Is the question generic? Or specific to Hedera?

[@Supremax67]

The second fork wouldn't be recognized as the main network, nothing would happen would that second fork. That's if, to say the least, forking was actually able to take place.

[@necrobdale]

Isn't it very likely that the government council (and companies close to them) will own more than 2/3 of all coins? As you mentioned, they are going to be "large old companies" (22:15) If some kind of "emergency" because of war or terror is declared, and they unanimously decide to implement some code that would monitor the users of the ledger very heavily, wouln't the little people have no other choice than having to implement the code too, because otherwise, they would be kicked out of the ledger? Isn't it naive to assume that the government council members aren't going to be hostile 20, 50, 100 years from now on?? What about corruption to be elected as one of the council members? Over tens of years, plutocrats are going to slowly buy their way in to power. The ones with most voting power on Ledger are going to be plutocrats (biggest stake). Just have a look what to happened to american democracy. Now this might seem very far-fetched, but would the people over a 100 years ago have thought that we would abondon sound money for fiat currencies? (and thus making plutocrats insanely powerful) It seems to me that this concept is highly reliant on the assumption that a minority (plutocrats) are not going to be able to obtain 2/3 of the coins or slowly buy their way in to governance.

[@necrobdale]

That bein said. I'm in love with the technology of Hashgraph and I hope it succeeds in a way that benefits humanity!

[@mannonharmon5988]

Not sure what you mean by monitor? This is a public ledger. Public is the key word. On day one you could run a Mirror Node yourself and see exactly what is happening on the ledger.

[@necrobdale]

@@mannonharmon5988 I just mean some kind of "malicious code"

[@mannonharmon5988]

@@necrobdale Take a look at Leemon's last video and he goes over the Governance of the system. These are 39 of the worlds best and they are also term limited.

[@LifeSuxTR]

To the moon

[@hassandiallo5326]

No doubt that bitcoin is an excellent invention, I am just wondering why would you come up with something like bitcoin and hole up, answer me please Satoshi Nakamoto, Thanks Dr. Baird for explaining your invention.

[@closedchannel4606]

I have a solution to the forking.

[@Supremax67]

They already have 3 solutions :)

[@Anonymous-wy5dc]

I do as well I call it sporking working progress

[@TxFw]

Leeman is a real pioneer but he is naturally biased to not mention or give credit (I guess it is possible he is not aware?) to existing non-forking stable ledgers already being used to secure ownership of real estate. He has to be aware! Hedera is copying the same message! What am I talking about!? I'm talking about Tezos - a blockchain originating in 2014 and founded on the very idea that you can't build major value and run critical applications on a ledger that is easily forked. Hence the focus on governance. I like both Hedera and Tezos but at least with Tezos, as a holder of Tez (XTZ) of any amount, I have a say in how the software upgrades. With Hedera I don't. Which ledger has a better process for software upgrades? Think about it. And which best incentivizes innovation of the core protocols and mechanisms on which all applications are built. Clearly, if you want to build tall you must have a strong foundation, one which is stable yet keeps pace with innovation. In some ways Hedera has an edge and in some ways Tezos has an edge.

[@paulmadsen]

We don't pretend to be the only ledger that sees the harm in forks (and so value in preventing) . Indeed, we expect more will come to the realization. Yes tezos has a very different governance model than Hedera - we think ours has advantages, which isn't to say that others can't be valuable. Big space == lots of corners

[@TxFw]

@@paulmadsen Agreed on all points. Indeed and the space will only get bigger, much bigger. My point was Tezos was first to really highlight the need for a ledger that seamlessly upgrades since Bitcoin and Ethereum do anything but that. They got people in crypto talking about governance and realizing how important an issue it is. Props to Hedera for also recognizing this.

[@iansteel6403]

"Good Governance" in decentralization and future-proofing is not what you've assembled here -- quite the opposite.