Hi Diana. After reading your article I was wondering why Graphene is not one of the most popular blockchains. But it becomes clear when reading this article from BitShares, which presents more details about Graphene.
Graphene has been designed especially for transactions (token transfer) and high-throughput in order to compete with Visa and Mastercard. This results in a lack of versatility, so comparing it to Ethereum is ...well, pretty unfair for Ethereum. Graphene also has very high requirements especially when it comes to the bandwidth:
The real bottleneck is not the memory requirements, but the bandwidth requirements. At 1 million transactions per second and 256 bytes per transaction, the network would require 256 megabytes per second (1 Gbit/sec).
Actually there's an error in their calculations. 256 MByte/s == 2 GBit/s, but the article jumps from 100.000 tps (-> 25 MByte/s == 200 MBit/s) to 1 million tps for no reason... anyway, all these numbers are too high for worldwide adoption. Graphene was not built to compete with Bitcoin, it is probably only a PoC to see what happens when you mix blockchain technology with high performance architecture as seen in LMAX.
There doesn't seem to be much demand for Graphene since not many developers have contributed to the github repo lately.
Having been a professional tech blogger since 2015 and having proficiency in programming, I generally cover such topics as mobile & web development, dev technologies, AI, and IoT.
Hi, Thorsten! Yes, you are right, but I didn't mean that Graphene was created to compete with Bitcoin. The goal is to show that Graphene has great prospects for the emergence of many innovative projects like Steemit.)
It isn't one of the more popular blockchains out there because it makes several leaps in logic - most of which are likely promulgated by the fact that its core (and only) focus, it seems, is on increasing the transaction throughput without concern for the other relevant network metrics, such as:
Size of the transaction
Network throughput (gotta ensure that all of those transactions propagate somehow)
Being an actual blockchain
Yes, #3 was stated here because Graphene does not represent blockchain, but rather a bastardization of it that many have been trying to hawk off oas as blockchain for a considerable amount of time.
DPoS or any other consensus variant of the like that is not firmly implanted as "Proof of Work" (and iterated as such), is bound to fail miserably. And that's just a tacit fact.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hi Diana. After reading your article I was wondering why Graphene is not one of the most popular blockchains. But it becomes clear when reading this article from BitShares, which presents more details about Graphene.
Graphene has been designed especially for transactions (token transfer) and high-throughput in order to compete with Visa and Mastercard. This results in a lack of versatility, so comparing it to Ethereum is ...well, pretty unfair for Ethereum. Graphene also has very high requirements especially when it comes to the bandwidth:
Actually there's an error in their calculations. 256 MByte/s == 2 GBit/s, but the article jumps from 100.000 tps (-> 25 MByte/s == 200 MBit/s) to 1 million tps for no reason... anyway, all these numbers are too high for worldwide adoption. Graphene was not built to compete with Bitcoin, it is probably only a PoC to see what happens when you mix blockchain technology with high performance architecture as seen in LMAX.
There doesn't seem to be much demand for Graphene since not many developers have contributed to the github repo lately.
Hi, Thorsten! Yes, you are right, but I didn't mean that Graphene was created to compete with Bitcoin. The goal is to show that Graphene has great prospects for the emergence of many innovative projects like Steemit.)
It isn't one of the more popular blockchains out there because it makes several leaps in logic - most of which are likely promulgated by the fact that its core (and only) focus, it seems, is on increasing the transaction throughput without concern for the other relevant network metrics, such as:
Size of the transaction
Network throughput (gotta ensure that all of those transactions propagate somehow)
Being an actual blockchain
Yes, #3 was stated here because Graphene does not represent blockchain, but rather a bastardization of it that many have been trying to hawk off oas as blockchain for a considerable amount of time.
DPoS or any other consensus variant of the like that is not firmly implanted as "Proof of Work" (and iterated as such), is bound to fail miserably. And that's just a tacit fact.