PARSEC marketing

I’m still a bit confused on what the differences are between PARSEC and other consensus mechanism (for example hashgraph). Can we maybe make a table in which we compare characteristics of popular consensus mechanisms and their pros/cons?

I think it would make things a lot clearer for and easier to explain to the lesser mortals…


#1 Hashgraph is proprietary, PARSEC will be open source. Big difference.


yes but it’s still rather useful to understand the differences between the mechanics, next to the economics :wink:


Really it would require reading all the papers to be correct. Very very basically though

  1. Hashgraph is async if we do not count adversaries, which will require a common coin. That common coin introduces (most likely) threshold signatures or similar which has large delays (sync parts). So basic algo is async, but for bad actors, you need to introduce synchronicity, in our opinion with delays too long for nodes leaving and joining (i.e. up to 2 mins to create a group key then distribute it, plus issues over corrupt shares of the key etc.). Hashgraph is also closed source and the company will not license to any platform type project.

  2. PARSEC is async, with a very small amount of sychronicity in its concrete coin impl. It should be very fast, even with malicious nodes on the network. Open source.

  3. Algorand, is synchronous, but fast (batches) in fact our concrete coin came from adapting their synchronous coint as their paper TRIVIAL. Open source.

  4. Honey Badger, is again async, but requires threshold sigs and their slow synchronous component (it is likely bounded though), which makes node add/remove (permissionless networks) more difficult. It is very fast when batching transactions such as when used as a cryptocurrency foundation. Open source.

This is a small number of differences and each possibly arguably, that is why reading and understanding all the papers is really required to compare like for like.


I dug into the Hashgraph whitepaper last night and though i don’t fully understand the underlying mathematics I’m rather impressed but they still don’t address as many issues as maidsafe. Their sharding seems way more complicated and like a half baked after thought but they are still light years ahead of Blockchain tech, similar to maidsafe. They know how to talk the talk and their target audience is the big money corporate world. One thing I thought was quite clever was their use of military grade encryption schemes etc and on boarding for KYC/AML compliance. They are obviously catering or pandering to governments and corporates, who have a lot of power already in this world. I think that and a good enough implementation of this kind of tech will make them successful. Examples they have of an authority revoking a license is something that could just as easily be done on SAFE, when I hear that it makes sense but it doesn’t exactly ring freedom either. Overall I think Maidsafe aligns well with it being the people’s internet, a new and revolutionary kind of internet and Hashgraph is a more like a major upgrade to the old internet.

Forgot to mention that Hashgraph has a smart contract layer that will work with solidity code so that basically all of Etherums dapps can be easily launched on hedera Hashgraph. Another very clever move.


@pierrechevalier83 has now created an amazing video explanation of PARSEC, please share!


I’ve posted @pierrechevalier83 video on my Steemit blog here:

Please go and upvote and comment !


Another mention of MaidSafe and PARSEC.


Big new one on techcrunch:


This has been mentioned already here.

But maybe it is ok to have it here as well?


Could be way how to reduce networking in Nano network


Hi Devs, how far away are we from the 2nd paper which was supposed to be released?

There has been no date given yet for its release, just it is coming. David said that they are working on the 2nd paper as of the last update, and did not give a date for its release.


i know that, therefore i asked for a update in this matter which you cannot provide


And no one else will be able either. Until its ready, we will not be given a date.

This is what David said

I see you asked 5 days ago. Did you expect any different answer? Yet you said "the 2nd paper which was supposed to be released?* as if a date had been given and had passed. There has never been a release date.


Adam, we do not give timescales, members and mods of this forum will certainly not be able to. It is for all the reasons @neo stated and quoted. Are you in a rush for the paper for any particular reason? i.e. do you need it to build your own project, if so then get involved with the review process as that will be helpful? If you just want the next thing we are working on faster then you will find every time you ask the time is longer, obviously as it takes time to reply, therefore you delay the deliverable.

Just like stopping a sprinter mid-race to ask when he will finish when you think about it! (i.e. I doubt he will win that race and might just stop trying) Unless you think we are slacking I would not bug folk for times like this as it is counterproductive.


s(n1-1000) lim [ t(e) ^ s(n) ] + t(w) = ∞

t(e) is the time it takes to explain how it is impossible to calculate how long it will take.
t(w) is the time it takes to actually work on the problem.
s(n) number of times asked to explain how long it will take.

As you can see, interfering with developers while at work can lead to catastrophic consequences. Please do not disturb the developers.


^^^ This…

…should land right in FAQ.

Or better, it should be printed on a vignette we should glue on a bottle of champagne the impatient ones can open when it’s done – but only if they have made it without asking.

Or we should get Advent-like chocolate calendars the impatient ones could eat a chocolate out of for each day they make it through without asking (but people like me would cheat).


I’m just excited to see stuff like this going on - A second paper might come after they’ve gotten most if not all of PARSEC implemented?