## 2 Literature Review
### Comparison of Holochain with Other DLTs in IoT Networks  
DLTs have revolutionized decentralized systems. Each DLT has unique characteristics that make it suitable for specific use cases. For IoT applications, factors like scalability, energy efficiency, latency, and decentralization play critical roles in determining the suitability of a particular DLT. Table 1 compares Holochain with other prominent DLTs: blockchain, Tangle (IOTA), Hashgraph, and Sidedchains. Holochain, with its agent-centric design, provides a scalable and decentralized alternative to traditional DLTs like blockchain, Tangle (IOTA), and Hashgraph. Unlike these systems, Holochain does not require global consensus, eliminating the energy-intensive processes of Proof of Work (PoW) or Proof of Stake (PoS). This makes it ideal for serverless IoT applications with millions of lightweight, autonomous devices. Each peer has its own ledger (local chain) and operates independently while interacting with others. Users control \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**DLT Technology** & **Blockchain** & **Tangle (IOTA)** & **Hashgraph** & **Sidedchains** & **Holochain** \\ \hline
**Consensus Mechanism** & PoW, PoS, or Delegated PoS [8] & DAG where transactions validate each other [9] & Gossip protocol and Virtual Voting for BFT [10] & Independent consensus; varies by implementation (e.g., PoW, PoS) [11] & Agent-centric with local validation, no global consensus [12] \\ \hline
**Scalability** & Limited by block size and mining bandwidth & High; scales with more participants [9; 13] & High; efficient communication & Depends on parent chain’s scalability & Very high; nodes operate independently [14] \\ \hline
**Latency** & High; delayed by mining/validation [15] & Low; transactions validate directly & Very low; near-instantaneous finality [16] & Variable; depends on implementation & Very low; local transactions are processed instantly \\ \hline
**Resource Efficiency** & High energy consumption (e.g., PoW) [8] & Low; no mining overhead & Low; avoids mining requirements & Dependent on parent chain & Very low; lightweight operations \\ \hline
**Security** & Vulnerable to 51\% attacks [17] & Resilient; majority network control required & BFT & Independent security; separate trust model & Local integrity \\ \hline
**Decentralization** & High but centralized mining pools exist & High; designed for IoT & High; all nodes contribute equally & Variable; dependent on parent chain & High agents independently own data \\ \hline
**Data Ownership** & Shared across nodes [8] & Shared ownership & Shared ownership & Inherited from parent chain & Agent-centric; users own their data \\ \hline
**Throughput** & Moderate (7–20 TPS for Bitcoin, 1000+ TPS for modern blockchains) & High; parallel processing of transactions & Very high; thousands of TPS & Variable; depends on design & Very high; no bottlenecks from global consensus \\ \hline
**IoT Suitability** & Limited by scalability and latency & Excellent; tailored for lightweight IoT devices & Suitable but resource-intensive & Moderate; specific to use case & Excellent; lightweight, agent-centric design \\ \hline
**Key Challenges** & Scalability, energy consumption & Immaturity; transactions & Complexity; proprietary licensing & Interoperability with main chain & Adoption and interoperability \\ \hline
**Platforms/ Languages** & Bitcoin, Ethereum, C++, Go, Solidity & IOTA Rust, Go, C [18] & Hedera Java, JS & Polkadot, Cosmos Rust, Go [19] & Holo Rust [20] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of Holochain vs. other DLTs in IoT networks. their identity and data, and encrypted P2P networks facilitate communication. Holochain's lack of global consensus results in low latency and high throughput, addressing scalability and speed issues present in other DLTs like blockchain. However, Holochain's agent-centric model also introduces certain challenges, particularly in terms of interoperability and adoption.