Thus far, analysis has been largely limited to either pointing to historical cases, or to analyzing under the same assumption as is consistent with the history, and that is... Very little real use/transaction fees, where the block size is unbounded.
Post by twetch#622
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. 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 (10)
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.
What 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.
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.