"Hashgraph currently scales only in the number of transactions processed but does not scale with the number of nodes in the network."
From the article you quoted.
" If there aren't that many packages (messages) but there are tons of people (nodes) then it might be applicable."
From your reply.
Unless I am even more confused and stupid than I think I am, I find those two statements contradictory. That being said, I was unaware of the scalability issue with Hashgraph, and don't understand it. I'm not that surprised really, as I am not a coder, and don't expect to be able to follow deep into the nuts and bolts.
If Hashgraph doesn't scale nodewise, then I'm saddened, but glad you pointed it out. Checking out Zilliqua now, in the hope that scalability in all three dimensions either turns up, or can be cobbled together soon.
Thanks!
I see what you mean, good catch.
In the context in the article the author is talking about taking the dimensions of use independently, of number of messages, payload size (together which combine to throughput) and number of nodes. I thought it was that for the same number of nodes, hashgraph can scale in throughput, and for the same amount of throughput, it can scale in number of nodes (that is, holding each variable and scaling the other) but perhaps my interpretation was incorrect. Thanks for that, now I'm not sure.
I'll need to do more reading actually because there's not quite enough here. I'll get back to you on that.