BTC does not have this flexibility due to the block size limit. Q Supplied is a constant, with small flexibility for Segwit's "block weight" accounting hack.
Post by twetch#622
This still doesn't account for price changes, however, BSV miners are building fiat-consistent transaction pricing contracts.
If a significant portion of miner revenue comes from such contracts, or API driven fiat-consistent fee pricing, the game changes.
What the chain says
- Block
- 625 635
- Time
- 2020-03-10T17:03:29Z
- Signer
- 1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#622
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C VerifiedReplies (8)
Under this scenario, BSV miner revenue is much more consistent than BTC miner revenue is.
This certainly doesn't look good for BTC, but for BSV, especially given the flexible Q Supplied, there really isn't much reason to worry.
If anything, this just creates more reason to increase the chained transaction limit so that user actions don't get interrupted. That would reduce revenue flow to BSV miners after a certain amount of time without a block mined.
To be clear...
If transaction fee based revenue is 50% for a 10 minute average block... Consider that it will be 66% for a 20 minute average block... And 75% for a 30 minute average block...
The mining dynamics skew hugely in BSV's favor.
So if, as I understand it, the DAA change is the only real hard forking change to come, then waiting until transaction volume is high enough to maintain quality of service is the only real consideration left, and it solves the DAA issues... For BSV.