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.
Post by twetch#622
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.
What the chain says
- Block
- 625 638
- Time
- 2020-03-10T17:07:41Z
- 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 (4)
Regarding how this affects BCH, I believe BCH will see massive swings in hash power, and it will face huge variance in block times as a result of time-since-last-block dependent revenue on BSV.
It is likely that there will be <10 minute spans with >6 blocks found, followed by extended periods with very few blocks found.
Essentially, given the 50% from fees average revenue on BSV scenario, until BSV hits a certain threshold of waiting fees, BCH and BTC will have BSV miner's hash power on their chains.
It mostly depends on where BSV's price is compared to BTC/BCH as to how volatile these swings are.
If BCH has any significant usage, this will be hugely detrimental for their chain.