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.
Post by twetch#622
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.
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 (6)
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.
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.