BSV is scaling. BSV blocks are unbounded in size. Adoption on BSV, as in transaction volume, is increasing.
coinmetrics.io One Home for Institutional Digital Asset Data & Intelligence | Talos Discover market and on-chain data, reference rates, indexes, APIs, documentation, coverage tools, and support resources for institutional digital asset teams. The above linked chart is tracking the actual transaction fees paid to miners in BTC vs BSV.
This is fundamentally the most important figure when analyzing DAA effects under the proposed scenario, especially as the inflation halving schedule continues.
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C VerifiedWhat happens if BSV reaches fee parity with the coinbase subsidy/inflation schedule?
50% of miner revenue becomes divorced from the block production rate and is instead dependent on number of transactions included in a block.
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.
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.
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.
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.