Graphene and LN are not in the same category. LN is a payment network atop of BTC. Graphene is a block propagation protocol. There is nothing to compare.
Both are related to scaling but that is about it, graphene is an improvement on the existing network/chain while LN is another layer/tech outside of the original chain.
Whomever created this topic doesn't understand that Graphene and LN are 2 different technologies. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Nothing to do with each other.
Obviously they're different technologies, however the main purpose of their implementation is for reduced fees. There'd be no reason to implement these technologies otherwise
BCH uses Graphene and big blocks, while BTC chose to go the lightning route. I'm saying it makes no difference for BCH, as we are already paying 1 sat per byte. BTC however has mSats
It is possible to pay in mSats per byte on Bitcoin Cash if only less that 1 sat/byte transactions get relayed my a large portion of clients and miners pick them up.
Paying 1 sat per kilobyte is an example of paying in mSats, would probably be 1 Sat instead of 0.25 Sat for the whole transaction, but for Bitcoin the price per transaction is decided
by a sort of auction by the demand for transactions outstripping the supply for block space.
Which is why big blocks already solve the problem for BCH. But for BTC, they can just as easily implement graphene as well, leading to 10x reduced fees on their blockchain.
Graphene will not reduce the fees on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Not unless the block space is increased or the demand for transactions go down drastically.
To say it WON'T reduce fees on BTC's blockchain without any justification is incorrect. "Graphene reduces traffic overhead by reducing block overhead" - from Whitepaper, by 10x less
Saying it won't have much of an effect would be better (but I fail to see how it won't change it greatly), even at a minimum amount, there would be some change expected
Because it does not actually make more room for transactions in the block itself, it just makes it so that the block is faster and easier to propagate once it is found.
I don't think it makes blocks faster at all, it makes blocks more efficient meaning it uses less traffic overhead (which means reduced fees). Show me where it says Faster Blocks
Also on page 6, "When the current topology is used, Graphene reduces traffic to 60% of the cost of Compact Blocks (or to 10% for total traffic, which INCLUDES transaction data)."
If you look at Figure 4 from page 7, you'll see a chart that shows there is more space per node for transaction data.
The number of transactions in an actual block does NOT change with graphene. That figure is not showing what's in a BLOCK.
Exactly, this has to do with traffic over the network, sending signals, not actually storing more in the blocks or reducing the time between blocks being mined.
Graphene uses the fact that each miner has most of the transactions that are contained in a new block already stored in their mempool.
It constructs a message that is just enough to verify which ones do get in and calculate the missing ones.
Minimum fee depends just on miners good will. There are miners that put free transactions in their blocks.
So graphene is just about making bandwidth less of a bottleneck while propagating blocks.
Correct, which helps a great deal when blocks starts to get filled up more or if the block limit gets increased.
Minimum fee isn't based on "goodwill". Miners don't mine for altruistic reasons.
